nucleation

LIT-1497: Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta‐analysis of Effects and Processes

2 min read

Properties5
StatusActive — read in full 2026-10-24 (NOTE-1124) from the University of Konstanz repository's scan of the published chapter (KOPS, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0), through OCR; worth reading as the first large meta-analysis of if-then planning and the fullest statement of its mechanism: a plan hands initiation of a response decided in advance to the cue it names, so nothing is deliberated in the situation, and the plan fires only while the goal behind it is active. 94 tests, d = .65 against a goal intention alone, with large effects on cue accessibility and on the immediacy, efficiency and non-conscious running of planned responses from small sets of tests. The size is not corrected for publication bias; the 2024 review of 642 tests (LIT-1488) finds the bias substantial and a corrected effect near d = .15. What happens when a plan's response proves wrong is named and left untested.
Version3
Tagsmotivation, behavioral-integration, social-science
Cited as “paper” byNOTE-1124 — Gollwitzer & Sheeran — Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis
Cited as “source” byTHEORY-1176 — Implementation intentions affect performance only when the goal intention they serve is strong and activated, so the cue-triggered response is gated by the goal and does not fire on the cue alone, THEORY-904 — Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) conclude, narratively from a handful of studies that measured or manipulated the goal intention, that implementation intentions affect performance only when the goal intention they serve is strong and activated, so the planned response is not elicited mechanically by its cue; in 2024, across eight tests, plan effects were larger with strong, activated or self-concordant goal intentions than with weak, unactivated or self-discordant ones (d = .79 for the difference), and in 31 physical-activity tests split at the median of intention, planning helped with strong intentions (d = .31) and had no effect with weak ones (d ≈ 0), THEORY-913 — In small fixed-effect meta-analytic pools without correction for publication bias, responses specified in if-then plans ran more immediately (d = .77, k = 7), held up under a concurrent cognitive load (d = .85, k = 7) and ran without conscious intent (d = .72, k = 3) compared with responses under a goal intention alone, and the planned cues were detected, attended to and remembered better (d = .80, k = 6); the authors read this as control of the response handed in advance to the cue

Graph View

Gollwitzer, P. M. & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38: 69–119. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1.

Key takeaways

From the reading, NOTE-1124. Page numbers are the chapter’s.

  • The effect, uncorrected. d = .65 [.60, .70] over 94 tests and 8,461 participants, plan plus goal intention against goal intention alone (p. 92); fixed-effect, mostly students and laboratory tasks.
  • Four problems of goal striving. Getting started d = .61 (k = 52), shielding .77 (k = 21), disengaging from failing goals .47 (k = 3), conserving capability 1.28 (k = 3) (p. 96).
  • The mechanism. Planned cues became more accessible (d = .80, k = 6); planned responses were immediate (.77), efficient under load (.85) and ran without conscious intent (.72), from 3–7 tests each (p. 97). Forming the plan “involves a strategic abdication of effortful action control” (p. 84).
  • Gated by the goal. Plans affected performance only with the goal intention strong and active, so they do not fire mechanically (p. 103).
  • Left open. What happens when a plan fails or does harm: “We do not know yet what happens” (p. 104).

Why this is here

The exchange cited it at turn U10 for the effect of if-then plans on acting on an intention: specifying the situation and the response in advance hands the response to the situation. The abstract agrees and gives the figure (d = .65 over 94 tests).

Corrected 2026-10-24, from the reading. Two things. The d = .65 is not corrected for publication bias, which was checked only by comparing published with unpublished tests; the record should cite the 2024 review (LIT-1488), which finds the bias substantial and a corrected d of about .15. And the link a plan forges is from cue to a response decided in advance, gated by an active goal: in CLAIM-443’s terms a prior over actions, not over which process governs. The claim’s distinguishing case, a change in which response is right, is the one the authors name as unstudied (p. 104). Filed from it: THEORY-913 (the component processes) and THEORY-904 (goal-dependence).

Backlinks