4/32 What? Goal intention I am going to buy a bike Implementation intention: –if Situation X occurs, I will do Y. next Thursday after work, I will buy a bike in store A Effect sizes.50-1.0 Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). American Psychologist, 54, 493-504 Gollwitzer, P.M. & Sheeran P. (2006). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-116
5/32 How? Perception of X facilitated X-Y association reinforced Flexible delegation of control to cues Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999). Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-504 Webb & Sheeran (2007). How do implementation intention promote goal attainment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 295-302
6/32 Where? –Organization behavior –Health behavior –Educational psychology –Marketing? Budden, J.S., Sagarin, B.J., (2007). Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 391-401. Luszczynska, A.; Scholz, U., & Sutton, S. (2007). Journal of Psychosomatic Research 63 (5): 491-497 Webb, T.L., Christian, J., & Armitage, C.J. (2007). Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 316-327
8/32 Goal system theory Network of goals and means –Goal intentions Non-exclusive links Adding means Dilution effect –Claim: II analogous to adding means Fishbach, A., J.Y. Shah, and A. Kruglanski (2004), Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (6), 723–38. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 331–378)
9/32 Cost and benefits of II + more efficient organization Input is catalyzed -- Dilution effect -Adding means reduces triggering power of other means Pivotal role of associative strength –Novelty is real life proxy Fishbach, A., J.Y. Shah, and A. Kruglanski (2004), Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (6), 723–38. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 331–378)
10/32 Consistent evidence Reversed effect for difficult outcome goals Reversed effect among socially prescribed perfectionists No II effect when no goal intention Dewitte, S, Verguts, T. & Lens, W. (2003). Current Psychology: Development, Learning, Personality, Social, Planned Behavior, 22, 73-89. Powers, T.A. Koestner, R & Topciu, RA (2005). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, 902-912 Sheeran, P. Webb, T. L., & Gollwitzer, P. (2005). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 87–98.
11/32 Present project –Forming implementation intentions hinder novel goal enactment Studies 1 - 3 –Association strength plays a crucial role Study 4 moderation by individual difference Studies 5-6 experimental causal chain design
13/32 Study 1 Do implementation intention reduce purchase likelihood for novel products? PHASE 1 –Two (novelty) by two (I.I. vs. None) Both within subjects factors –Four goal intentions per person (n = 75, 299 goals, 203 final) –Price –Manipulation checks
14/32 Study 1 PHASE 2 –Two weeks later –By e-mail –Goal intentions listed Five category scale 1.Purchased as planned 2.Purchased but in an other way 3.Went to the store but did not buy 4.Thought of it, but did not act upon it 5.Did not think of it anymore
15/32 Study 1: a few examples Ventilating system cheese Spa sprankling water dress Mp3 player shoes Gsm protection bag Mashed potatoes Dvd cubborn Book by Dan Brown 'Digital Fortress' A strip Gaston nr 18 A marsbar Special head phones computer A drum
19/32 Study 1: Results Price problem Replication weak Novelty: artificial?
20/32 Study 2 Price and replication problem: –activities rather than products Artificiality problem: –Measure novelty rather than manipulate it
21/32 Study 2: Method Identical to Study 1, except –Activities rather than products –Novelty was measured rather than manipulated –D.V. measured on a 100-point scale –25 students
22/32 Study 2: A few examples Revalidation activities (walking, biking) Painting my student room Learning how to cook Decorating my student room Searching a student job shopping Work as a job student for another week Giving my fish fresh water Buy stuff for my student room Go to the movies
27/32 What is the process? Study 4: moderation by procrastination Study 5 & 6: experimental causal chain design
28/32 Study 4 –Procrastinators vs. Prudents Behavioral definition: postponing intentions –Procrastinators and prudents: top-down organization –Procrastinators: –Dilution effect weaker –II relatively more efficient Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (1999). European Journal of Personality, 14, 121-140. Steel, P. (2007). Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65-94.
29/32 Study 4 –Identical to study 2, except Between subjects DV: enactment of two novel goals (novel versus repeat) Interphase interval 8 weeks Workplace: working adults (50 in both phases) Lays procrastination scale Lay CH. 1986. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474-495.
31/32 Study 5&6: Process –Experimental Causal Chain design –Manipulate A measure B –Manipulate B measure C –Useful if measuring and manipulating B is undebatable: A causes C via B Spencer, SJ, Zanna M, & Fong GT 2005. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89, 845-851
32/32 Study 5 –parallels Study 1, 30 participants –D.V.1 in phase 1 (following a filler of 10): Free continuous association task with the product as a source stimulus
36/34 Study 5 & 6 II leads to weaker associations with goal in novel goals Forging associations with goal increases enactment rate Chain: II leads to lower enactment rate in novel goals due to weaker associations Interpretation: premature delegation
37/34 Future research Summary Spontaneous planning: do people realize the moderation? –Perhaps planning occurs only if Novelty is only derivative of association strength. Other interesting side-effects of association strength? Why and how do I.I. help procrastinators?