Source
Gollwitzer & Sheeran (2006), LIT-1497, read in NOTE-1124, p. 103; and Sheeran, Listrom & Gollwitzer (2024), LIT-1488, read in NOTE-1131, Table 2 and p. 177. What the two showed is THEORY-904, which this entry extends.
The claim
Gollwitzer and Sheeran state the gate as a general property of implementation intentions: “action control by implementation intentions does not involve a mechanistic elicitation of action in the presence of environmental cues but rather respects the presence versus absence of activated strong goal intentions” (p. 103; NOTE-1124, C6). An if-then plan delegates the response to its cue, but whether the cue produces it is decided by the goal the plan serves. Sheeran, Listrom and Gollwitzer read their 2024 moderator the same way: planning works when motivation to reach the goal is high, and not when it is weak (NOTE-1131, C6).
The evidence is narrative in 2006, from a handful of studies, and a between-test difference in 2024 (d = .79, k = 8), with a null in the weak cell only among the physical-activity tests. No crossed test of plan against goal is reported, and the authors leave open whether the gate survives the plan’s being acted on many times.
What would settle it
The promote_when, which is QUESTION-314: plan crossed with an activated or deactivated goal, in samples that could show a null in the weak cells, preferably repeated after many executions of the plan. Between-test comparisons in a meta-analysis cannot settle it.