Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 659–672 | Cite as

When focusing on a goal interferes with action control: action versus state orientation and over-maintenance of intentions

Original Paper


People vary in action versus state orientation, or the ease versus difficulty by which they can form and enact goals under demanding conditions (Kuhl and Beckmann in Volition and personality: action versus state orientation, Hogrefe, Göttingen, 1994). According to the over-maintenance hypothesis, state-oriented people are prone to think about their intentions in a narrow linguistic format that prevents flexible action control. Two studies tested this hypothesis by manipulating intention focus among action- versus state-oriented participants and examining how well they performed difficult actions. Focusing strongly (rather than weakly) on the task goal led state-oriented participants to make more errors during incongruent trials of a Stroop task (Study 1) and led to greater task-switch costs in response latencies (Study 2). Action-oriented participants showed the reverse pattern, and performed difficult actions more effectively when focusing on the task goal. These findings suggest that focusing on intentions may paradoxically impair action control among state-oriented people.


Action orientation State orientation Cognitive control Intentions Goals Proactive control Reactive control 


  1. 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(3), 381–393. doi:10.1177/0146167207311201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann, N., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Striving for unwanted goals: stress-dependent discrepancies between explicit and implicit achievement motives reduce subjective well-being and increase psychosomatic symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 781. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. J. (1986). A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16(4), 361–383. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420160405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16(2), 101–105. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boekaerts, M., & Otten, R. (1993). Handlungskontrolle und Lernanstrengung im Schulunterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 7(2/3), 109–116.Google Scholar
  7. Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40(1), 109–131. doi:10.1146/ Scholar
  9. Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2010). The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science, 329, 47–50. doi:10.1126/science.1188595.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diefendorff, J. M. (2004). Examination of the roles of action-state orientation and goal orientation in the goal-setting and performance process. Human Performance, 17, 375–395. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1704_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diefendorff, J. M., Hall, R. J., Lord, R. G., & Strean, M. L. (2000). Action-state orientation: Construct validity of a revised measure and its relationship to work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 250–263. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Gosserand, R. (2006). Examination of situational and attitudinal moderators of the hesitation and performance relation. Personnel Psychology, 59, 365–393. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00641.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 343–353. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1211–1226. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1211.Google Scholar
  16. Greve, W. (2001). Traps and gaps in action explanation: Theoretical problems of a psychology of human action. Psychological Review, 108(2), 435. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: The dead ends and short cuts on the long way to action. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal-directed behaviour: The concept of action in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Heckhausen, H., & Strang, H. (1988). Efficiency under record performance demands: Exertion control—An individual difference variable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 489–498. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.489.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hull, C. (1943). Principles of behavior.Google Scholar
  20. Jaramillo, F., & Spector, P. E. (2004). The effect of action orientation on the academic performance of undergraduate marketing majors. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 250–260. doi:10.1177/0273475304268780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jostmann, N. B., & Gieselmann, A. (2014). When you have to climb downhill to reach the top: The effect of action versus state orientation on solving a goal-subgoal conflict in the tower of Hanoi task. Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000260.
  22. Jostmann, N. B., & Koole, S. L. (2006). On the waxing and waning of working memory: Action orientation moderates the impact of demanding relationship primes on working memory capacity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1716–1728. doi:10.1177/0146167206292595.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jostmann, N. B., & Koole, S. L. (2007). On the regulation of cognitive control: Action orientation moderates the impact of high demands in Stroop interference tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 593–609. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jostmann, N. B., Koole, S. L., van der Wulp, N. Y., & Fockenberg, D. A. (2005). Subliminal affect regulation: The moderating role of action vs. state orientation. European Psychologist, 10(3), 209. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.10.3.209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kazén, M., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2008). Individual differences in intention initiation under demanding conditions: Interactive effects of state vs. action orientation and enactment difficulty. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 693–715. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koole, S. L., & Fockenberg, D. A. (2011). Implicit emotion regulation under demanding conditions: The moderating role of action versus state orientation. Cognition and Emotion, 25(3), 440–452. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.544891.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koole, S. L., & Jostmann, N. B. (2004). Getting a grip on your feelings: Effects of action orientation and external demands on intuitive affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 974. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koole, S. L., Jostmann, N. B., & Baumann, N. (2012). Do demanding conditions help or hurt self-regulation? Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 4, 328–346. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00425.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koole, S., & Rothermund, K. (2011). ‘‘I feel better but I don’t know why’’: The psychology of implicit emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 265, 389–399. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.550505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: Toward a comprehensive theory of action control. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research (pp. 101–171). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In F. Halish & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention and volition (pp. 279–291). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuhl, J. (1994a). Motivation and volition. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 7.Google Scholar
  34. Kuhl, J. (1994b). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Control Scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 47–59). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  35. Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and selfregulation: The dynamics of personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 111–169). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1994). Volition and Personality: Action versus state orientation. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (1999). Volitional facilitation of difficult intentions: Joint activation of intention memory and positive affect removes Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology - General, 128(3), 382–399. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lau, H. C., & Passingham, R. E. (2007). Unconscious activation of the cognitive control system in the human prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 5805–5811. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4335-06.2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1(4), 240–246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00207.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mc Culloch, K. C., Aarts, H., Fujita, K., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Inhibition in goal systems: A retrieval-induced forgetting account. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 857–865. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.08.004.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meiran, N., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2012). When planning results in loss of control: Intention-based reflexivity and working-memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 104. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00104.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Morsella, E., Wilson, L. E., Berger, C. C., Honhongva, M., Gazzaley, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2009). Subjective aspects of cognitive control at different stages of processing. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 71(8), 1807–1824. doi:10.3758/APP.71.8.1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Palfai, T. P. (2002). Action-state orientation and the self-regulation of eating behavior. Eating Behaviors, 3, 249–259. doi:10.1016/S1471-0153(02)00068-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Palfai, T. P., McNally, A. M., & Roy, M. (2002). Volition and alcohol-risk reduction: The role of action orientation in the reduction of alcoholrelated harm among college student drinkers. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 309–317. doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(01)00186-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pelham, B. W., & Neter, E. (1995). The effect of motivation of judgment depends on the difficulty of the judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 581. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1261–1280. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smilek, D., Enns, J. T., Eastwood, J. D., & Merikle, P. M. (2006). Relax! Cognitive style influences visual search. Visual Cognition, 14, 543–564. doi:10.1080/13506280500193487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., Niu, X., & Xie, Y. (2006). Action-state orientation and the theory of planned behavior: A study of job search in china. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 490–503. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stroebe, W., Van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Papies, E. K., & Aarts, H. (2013). Why most dieters fail but some succeed: A goal conflict model of eating behavior. Psychological Review, 120(1), 110–138.Google Scholar
  51. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.121.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Veling, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2006). Shielding intentions from distraction: Forming an intention induces inhibition of distracting stimuli. Social Cognition, 24(4), 409–425. doi:10.1521/soco.2006.24.4.409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Veling, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2008). Intention formation induces episodic inhibition of distracting stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 128(1), 45–55. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zanini, S., Rumiati, R. I., & Shallice, T. (2002). Action sequencing deficit following frontal lobe lesion. Neurocase, 8, 88–99. doi:10.1076/neur.8.1.8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Organizational PsychologyVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Clinical PsychologyVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations