1. Summary and Discussion
Implementation Intentions and Executive Function
Meredith P. Johnson, Curtis D. Von Gunten, Marc Halusic, and Laura D. Scherer
University of Missouri
0099FF (bt) = R:0, G:153, B:255
29A329 (bg) = R:51, G:163, B:41
80CCFF (wt) = R:128, G:204, B:255
8AE62E (Wg) = R:138, G:230, B:46
Method (continued)
Implementation Intention Manipulation: Ps received different instructions based on assignment to 1 of 3 groups (ns = 86-88)
Association ImpInt: “If I see a Black man, I will think safe.”
Inhibitory ImpInt: “If I see a person, I will ignore race.”
Control: No ImpInt instructions
Implicit Racial Bias Measure: Shooter Task (Correll et al., 2002; Figure 2) Ps viewed images of Black or White men (target) holding either a gun or an object (e.g., a wallet). Ps were given 630 ms to either “shoot” or “not shoot” (via button press) based on whether or not the target was armed.
Background
Implementation Intentions (ImpInt) are a self-control technique that involves stating plans to behave a certain way given a specific scenario or situation.
Example:
Intentions: I intend to eat healthier vs.
Implementation Intentions: If I go to the store then I’ll buy apples.
Automating Goal Pursuit: ImpInt forms associative link between behavior and scenario. Conscious, effortful self-control becomes automated self-regulation (e.g., Gollwitzer, 1993, 1999).
Effective at regulating automatic behaviors (d = .65; for meta- analysis, see Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006), including the expression of implicit racial bias (e.g., Stewart & Payne, 2008)
Although ImpInt can facilitate self-control, the relationship between ImpInt and more general executive function (EF) abilities is unclear.
Summary and Discussion
Summary
Failed to replicate shooter effect.
Underpowered? A recent meta-analysis of the shooter task by Mekawi & Bresin (2015) indicate that the within-subjects effect size is 0.13, and thus 467 Ps are required to detect this effect at .80 power.
It is noteworthy that data was collected during Fall 2014 in Columbia, MO. Michael Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot by a police officer in Ferguson, MO in August 2014.
Failed to replicate two separate ImpInt strategies previously shown to reduce bias during the shooter task.
Inhibition ability predicted performance during an implicit racial bias task (the shooter task).
Greater Inhibition ability was also associated with increased Control exhibited during the shooter task.
Greater levels of both Controlled and Automatic processes contributed to response outcomes when the target was Black relative to White. bias task (the shooter task).
Future Directions
Test this hypothesis using an alternative racial bias task with a stronger, more replicable effect.
Increase the power of the study to meet minimum requirements of shooter task effect.
500 or 800 ms
630 ms (Response)
Results
Accuracy
2 (Race) x 2 (Object) x 3 (Instructions Group) ANOVA (Fig. 3).
No Effect of ImpInt on Shooter Task Performance: All ImpInt effects were not significant
Race main effect: F(1, 257) = 33.29, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.11; More accurate for Black than White targets.
Object main effect: F(1, 257) = 47.82, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.16; More accurate for Gun than Non-Gun objects.
Inhibition (Fig. 4): Inhibition was added to above ANOVA.
Inhibition main effect: F(1, 257) = 28.46, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.10
Purpose and Hypotheses
The purpose of the study was to examine whether ImpInts operate through automated priming that bypasses cognitive control.
If ImpInt do bypass cognitive control, then we would expect that applying ImpInt to control automatic race bias would not be more effective for participants (Ps) higher in EF ability (inhibition) relevant to the specific ImpInt strategy (ignore/inhibit race).
Figure 3. Accuracy: Race x Object x ImpInt Instructions (No effect for Instructions)
Figure 4. Inhibition Predicts Accuracy during Shooter Task
Method
Participants (Ps) were 260 Intro to Psych undergraduates (sample was 35% male, 70% White).
Procedure:
EF (Inhibition) Ability Measure: Anti-Saccade Task (Fig. 1) (Miyake et al., 2000) Ps were instructed to fixate on a dot at the center of the screen while they identified the direction of an arrow that subsequently appeared on the left or right side of the screen. Before the arrow appears, a cue flashes on either the same (pro-saccade) or opposite (anti-saccade) side of the screen as the arrow. Ps must suppress the reflexive saccade toward the cue and instead look in the opposite direction during anti-saccade blocks.
y = x, F(1, 258) = 29.05, p < .001, R2 = 0.10
EF Inhibition
(Anti-Saccade Mean Accuracy Arcsine-Transformed)
Shooter Task Overall Mean Accuracy
(Arcsine-Transformed)
References
Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer's dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1314.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38,
Mekawi, Y., & Bresin, K. (2015). Is the evidence from racial bias shooting task studies a smoking gun? Results from a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61,
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1),
Stewart, B. D., & Payne, B. K. (2008). Bringing automatic stereotyping under control: Implementation intentions as efficient means of thought control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10),
y = x, F(1, 257) = 31.14, p < .001, R2 = 0.11
Figure 5. Inhibition Predicts Control PDP
EF Inhibition
(Anti-Saccade Mean Accuracy Arcsine-Transformed)
Shooter Task PDP Control Overall Mean
Figure 1
Pro-Saccade Block
Anti-Saccade Block
Process Dissociation Procedure (PDP)
PDP and Inhibition: No effect of Instruction. Model (run separately for Controlled and Automatic processes): 2 (Race) x 3 (Instructions Group) x Inhibition
No Effect of ImpInt on Controlled or Automatic Processes
Inhibition significantly predicted Control (Fig. 5): F(1, 253) = 2.40, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.11; b = .36, SE = .06, t(257) = 5.58, p < .001
Race main effect within both processes (Ctrl: F(1, 253) = 5.22, p = .023, ηp2 = 0.02; Auto: F(1, 253) = 4.14, p = .043, ηp2 = 0.02); greater levels of both controlled and automatic processes contributed to response outcomes when the target was Black compared to White.
Cue (225 ms)
Target (150 ms)
Mask & Response