Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 1105–1110 | Cite as

Improving performance through implementation intentions: Are preexisting response biases replaced?

  • James D. MilesEmail author
  • Robert W. Proctor
Brief Reports
  • 327 Downloads

Abstract

Commonly, the focus of a planned behavior is to attain some future goal. An alternative to this type of goalfocused, or goal-oriented, strategy is to emphasize the action required to meet the goal rather than to emphasize the goal itself. Previous research has suggested that an action-oriented plan, also known as an implementationintention strategy, increases the chances of successfully reaching an intended future goal with minimal effort by making conscious, deliberate behaviors automatic. We investigated whether, within a Simon task, an implementation-intention strategy eliminates the contribution of preexisting response biases or whether it acts in addition to them. Results of two experiments show that an implementation-intention strategy provides a specific performance benefit that is in addition to, but not in place of, preexisting response biases.

Keywords

Compatibility Effect Implementation Intention Simon Task Critical Trial High Tone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Brandstatter, V., Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81, 946–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, A. L., Bayer, U. C., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Self-regulatory strategy and executive control: Implementation intentions modulate task switching and Simon task performance. Psychological Research, 72, 12–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. De Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 731–750.Google Scholar
  5. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 141–185). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73, 186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 69–119). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Reflective and reflexive action control in patients with frontal brain lesions. Neuropsychology, 15, 80–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Leventhal, H., Singer, R., & Jones, S. (1965). Effects of fear and specificity of recommendation upon attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2, 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milne, S., Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2002). Combining motivational and volitional interventions to promote exercise participation: Protection motivation theory and implementation intentions. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 163–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2004). Identifying good opportunities to act: Implementation intentions and cue discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette

Personalised recommendations