nucleation

THEORY-1175: Between tests, implementation intentions in the contingent if-then format had larger effects than plans that schedule when, where and what without linking cue to response (d = .43 against .29); rehearsing the plan once raised the effect, keeping a copy to revisit lowered it (.31 against .44), and adding how or for how long to a time-and-place cue roughly halved it

2 min read

Properties5
StatusProposed
Tagsmotivation, behavioral-integration, cognition
SourceLIT-1488 — The when and how of planning: Meta-analysis of the scope and components of implementation intentions in 642 tests
ExtendsTHEORY-908 — Between tests, uncorrected for publication bias, implementation intentions in the contingent if-then format had larger effects than plans that schedule when, where and what without linking cue to response (d = .43 against .29); tests in which the plan was rehearsed had larger effects (.45 against .33, with no gain beyond one rehearsal), tests in which it was recorded had smaller ones (.31 against .44), and adding how or for how long to a time and place went with about half the effect (.24 against .46)
Bears onQUESTION-309 — Within one design, do contingent if-then plans outperform schedule plans for the same goal, sample and outcome, does recording the plan weaken it, and does rehearsal work through the accessibility of the cue or the strength of the cue–response link?

Graph View

Source

Sheeran, Listrom & Gollwitzer (2024), LIT-1488, read in full in NOTE-1131. The between-test differences the review measured are THEORY-908, which this entry extends.

The claim

The authors read their moderator contrasts as effects of how a plan is formed. On format, they conclude “that contingent or if-then planning leads to superior impact on outcomes” (p. 180), because the link “causes participants not only to become perceptually ready to meet the cue but also mentally link that cue with the prepared response” (p. 165). On formation, one rehearsal helps and more adds nothing, and “when participants had the opportunity to revisit their plans (e.g., because they retained copies), those plans were less effective” (p. 180), which they read, with the smaller effect of plans that add how or for how long, as deliberation undermining automaticity.

What THEORY-908 holds is the contrasts themselves: contingent .43 against schedule .29, rehearsed .45 against .33, recorded .31 against .44, time and place .46 against .24 with how or how long added. They come from different studies, outcomes and settings, no within-study comparison is pooled, the estimates are not corrected for publication bias, and the deliberation account was not measured.

What would settle it

The promote_when, which QUESTION-309 also asks: random assignment of format and of recording within one design for the same goal, sample and outcome, and a test of what rehearsal works through. More between-test moderator analyses cannot answer it.

Backlinks