2006 ImplementationIntentionsandGoal
- (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006) ⇒ Peter M. Gollwitzer, and Paschal Sheeran. (2006). “Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta-analysis of Effects and Processes.” In: Advances in experimental social psychology, 38.
Subject Headings: Desired Outcome, Goal Achievement.
Notes
Cited By
Quotes
Abstract
Holding a strong goal intention (“I intend to reach Z!”) does not guarantee goal achievement, because people may fail to deal effectively with self-regulatory problems during goal striving. This review analyzes whether realization of goal intentions is facilitated by forming an implementation intention that spells out the when, where, and how of goal striving in advance (“If situation Y is encountered, then I will initiate goal‐directed behavior X!”). Findings from 94 independent tests showed that implementation intentions had a positive effect of medium-to-large magnitude (d =. 65) on goal attainment. Implementation intentions were effective in promoting the initiation of goal striving, the shielding of ongoing goal pursuit from unwanted influences, disengagement from failing courses of action, and conservation of capability for future goal striving. There was also strong support for postulated component processes: Implementation intention formation both enhanced the accessibility of specified opportunities and automated respective goal-directed responses. Several directions for future research are outlined.
I. Introduction
Understanding what factors determine whether people succeed or fail in achieving desired outcomes is a fundamental concern in both basic and applied psychology. Most theories of motivation and self‐regulation converge on the idea that setting a behavioral or outcome goal is the key act of willing that promotes goal attainment (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Atkinson, 1957; Bandura, 1991; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Gollwitzer, 1990; Locke & Latham, 1990). The basic assumption is that the strength of a person’s intention determines respective accomplishments (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Gollwitzer & Moskowitz, 1996; Oettingen & Gollwitzer, 2001; Sheeran, 2002). Although accumulated research supports this idea (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001; Sheeran, 2002; Sutton, 1998), there is also contrary evidence that gives credence to the proverb that ‘‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’’ (Orbell & Sheeran, 1998; Sheeran, 2002). To address this issue, Gollwitzer (1993, 1996, 1999) proposed that successful goal achievement is facilitated by a second act of willing that furnishes the goal intention with an if–then plan specifying when, where, and how the person will instigate responses that promote goal realization. These plans are termed implementation intentions.
Implementation intentions appear to be effective at enhancing the likelihood of goal achievement. However, the effectiveness of if–then planning has been reviewed only in narrative (e.g., Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer, Bayer, & McCulloch, 2005) and small‐scale quantitative (e.g., Koestner, Lekes, Powers, & Chicoine, 2002b; Sheeran, 2002) reports to date, and a comprehensive evaluation of implementation intention effects and processes is overdue. The aim of this review is to quantify the overall impact of implementation intention formation on goal achievement using meta‐analytic techniques. In addition, this chapter tests the effectiveness of implementation intentions in relation to different self‐regulatory problems and goal domains and assesses potential moderators of implementation intention effects. Finally, the impact of implementation intentions on theoretically specified component processes is examined to understand why implementation intentions may help people obtain outcomes that they desire.
II. Goal Intention Strength and Goal Achievement
Goal intentions are self‐instructions to attain certain outcomes or perform particular behaviors and typically take the format of ‘‘I intend to reach Z!’’ They are derived from beliefs about the feasibility and desirability of actions and end states (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Atkinson, 1957; Bandura, 1991, 1997; Brehm & Self, 1989; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Heckhausen, 1991; Locke & Latham, 1990; Vroom, 1964) and represent the culmination of the decision making process (Gollwitzer, 1990). Goal intentions signal the end of deliberation about what actions to perform or outcomes to reach; they imply a commitment to act that may vary in strength (Ajzen, 1991; Gollwitzer, 1990; Sheeran, 2002; Webb & Sheeran, 2005a).
References
;
| Author | volume | Date Value | title | type | journal | titleUrl | doi | note | year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 ImplementationIntentionsandGoal | Peter M. Gollwitzer Paschal Sheeran | Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta-analysis of Effects and Processes | 2006 |