2. I Like Myself but I Don’t Know Why: Enhancing Implicit Self Esteem by Subliminal Evaluative Conditioning Author: A.P Dijkserhuis

3. Hypothesis: It was predicted that implicit self- esteem could be enhanced by subliminal evaluative conditioning. Variables: Implicit self-esteem is DV and word pairing with “I” followed by positive traits are the IV

4. Experiment 1 -78 undergraduates were randomly assigned to a conditioned self-esteem condition or a control condition. -On a computer screen, 30 trials were presented in random order. -In the conditioned self-esteem group, 15 of the 30 trials paired the word “I” with a positive trait. -In the control group, 15 of the 30 trials paired the word “I” with a mundane, neutral word. -The remaining 15 trials presented random letter strings.

5. Experiment 1 -During the 30 trials, participants had to decide as fast as possible whether the words were real or not by pressing one of two keys (lexical decision task). -Participants were then asked to rate all 26 letters of the alphabet on a 7-point scale. Letters were presented in random order and the participant had to press the key corresponding to their rating (initial-preference task).

6. Experiment 2 -35 participants followed the same procedures as experiment 1. -All participants were presented with positive words. -In the control condition, words were not preceded by the word “I” -The initial preference task was given to the participants before and after the trials.

7. Experiment 3 -16 participants followed the same procedures as experiments 1 & 2. -In this experiment, the CS and US will be presented subliminally. -A row of Xs appeared on the screen for 500ms followed by the word “I” for 17ms. This was followed by a positive trait (conditioned self esteem group) or a neutral word (control group). -Positive/Neutral conditioning words were masked by presentation of target letter strings. Participants had to decide whether each letter string began with a vowel or a consonant.

8. Experiment 4 -83 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to a 2 (conditioned self esteem vs. control) X 2 (pos. intelligence feedback vs. neg. intelligence feedback) design. -Participants were given a task and were told it was developed by the Personality Department. They were told performance on the task correlated highly with analytical thinking and intelligence abilities. -Participants had to press buttons when one or two circles changed colors very rapidly.

9. Experiment 4 -Following 60 trials, participants received feedback. They were all presented with the same score, but the graphs they saw were different. -In the positive feedback condition, the participants’ graph indicated their score was much higher than other participants (among the top 10%). -In the negative feedback condition, the participants’ graph indicated their score was much lower than other participants (among the worst 10%).

10. Experiment 4 -The evaluative-conditioning procedure was administered, the same as experiment 3. -Next, their preference for initials were evaluated, like in experiments 1 and 2.

11. Experiment 5a -93 participants followed the same procedures as experiments 1-4 -Randomly assigned to a 2 (conditioned self esteem vs. control) X 2 (pos. intelligence feedback vs. neg. intelligence feedback) design. -They were given a 15-question multiple choice test and told it was “average” difficulty. Half the participants actually had a very difficult test and half the participants had an easy test. -Following the test, they were given a mood measure assessment.

12. Experiment 5b -55 participants followed the same procedures as experiments 1-5a -Randomly assigned to a 2 (conditioned self esteem vs. control) X 2 (pos. intelligence feedback vs. neg. intelligence feedback) design. -They were given a word association test. 3 words were presented and they had to come up with the 4 th word. -Participants were told the sets of words were “average” difficulty, but in reality, half the participants received hard sets and half received easy sets. -They received immediate feedback “right” and “wrong”

13. Experiment 5b -To test persistence, participants were told they could complete another set of “difficult” questions, but that it was not required. -Participants could start and finish the new set whenever they wanted. Time spend on the second set of words was recorded.

14. Results -Self-esteem could be enhanced by subliminal evaluative conditioning. -Conditioned self-esteem made participants insensitive to negative feedback. -Implicit self-esteem can be enhanced, at least temporarily, subliminally in about 25 seconds. -It is not yet known how long the effects of the manipulation last.

15. Planning to break unwanted habits: Habit strength moderates implementation intention effects on behaviour change Author: Webb, Thomas L & others

16. Hypothesis -Implementation intention formation promotes effective goal striving and goal attainment. -Forming an “if-then” plan

17. Experiment 1 -17 participants (ages 18-54) participated. -Experiment adopted a 2-between (training condition: habit vs. no habit) by 2-within (phase: pre-task switch vs. post. task switch) by 2-within (stimuli- critical vs. non- critical) design. -Habit manipulation  during ‘training phase’ participants in the “habit” condition completed the memory sets in which the consonants B,C,D,F,G,H while distractor stimuli were chosen from Q,R,S,T,V,W. In the “no habit” condition, memory sets and distractors were randomly intermixed across all trials.

18. Experiment 1 -Over the course of 10 consecutive days, participants completed 4 blocks of 36 trials each in which they had to identify consonants from the memory set (targets) on the computer screen frames. Each trial presented 0 or 1 stimulus from the memory set. -Participants had to press a button whenever they saw a target. -On the 6 th day, half the participants were told to form goal intentions or implementation intentions with respect to one of the stimuli. They were reminded to these instructions on each of the subsequent 4 days.

19. Experiment 1 -Task switch (days 6-10): the post-switch task was the same for all participants. The stimuli that constituted the memory set and the distractor set were reversed. Targets were chosen from Q,R,S,T,V,W and distractors were chosen from B,C,D,F,G,H. -Instruction manipulation: in the implementation intention condition, participants were asked to plan how to respond to one of the new memory set targets (as soon as I see the letter Q, I will press the button as quickly as possible!). They had to repeat the plan twice to fully commit. In the goal intention condition, they were asked to familiarize themselves with the letter “Q” in order to response especially quick if they found it.

20. Experiment 1 -Results  During the manipulation phase, the participants in the “habit” group had hit rates of 90, 95, and 100% while the “no-habit group” had hit rates that did not exceed 65% -During the switch-task phase, the “habit” group were negatively impacted and were unable to identify the new targets both for participants that formed goal intentions or implementation intentions. -The “no-habit” group had a positive impact on detection of non-critical targets for participants who formed goal intentions and no impact on detection for those who formed implementation intentions.

21. Experiment 2 -A field experiment! -Researchers had high school smokers volunteer to participate in the study after school. -Smokers were classified as either weak or strong smokers. -½ the participants were told to form implementation intentions that specified alternative responses to dues that typically trigger smoking. -One month later, behaviors are followed up.

22. Experiment 2 -Participants filled out a questionnaire. -Suitable participants received an intervention pack that either asked them to form implementation intentions with regard to smoking or contain a control intervention. The packs were handed out randomly. -In implementation condition, participants were asked to plan how to behave in four situations. -Participants in the control condition completed one of three control exercises in the packet. -Researches randomly checked up on smokers during the 1-month.

23. Experiment 2 -Results  Participants in the implementation formation group greatly reduced the number of cigarettes smoked per day. -Forming if-then plans to reduce smoking was effective in reducing smoking, but only among participants with weak or moderate smoking habits.