nucleation

THEORY-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)

2 min read

Properties7
StatusActive
Version2
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
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?
Cited as “corroborated by” byCLAIM-443 — A learned prior over which processes govern, P(g | z, H) ∝ exp(βQ(g, z) + b_H(g, z)), its bias b_H trained by reward-modulated Hebbian updates to the relations by which one process recruits or endorses another, is a candidate mechanism for durable authority and for amortized governance; but persistence is not amortization, which is shown only when earlier work replaces later computation, communication or recruitment, and a prior over authority differs from a prior over actions only when what is appropriate changes
Cited as “extends” byTHEORY-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

Graph View

Source

Sheeran, Listrom & Gollwitzer, LIT-1488, read in full in NOTE-1131: pp. 165–166, 173–175 and 179–180, with Tables 3 and 4.

What was actually shown

  • Format (Table 3, p. 173). Contingent plans d = .43, schedule plans .29, Q(1) = 20.81, p < .001. The authors conclude “that contingent or if-then planning leads to superior impact on outcomes” (p. 180).
  • Formation (Table 3). Any rehearsal .45 against none .33, with no gain from more than one rehearsal; recording .31 against .44; visualisation no difference.
  • Recording (p. 180). “when participants had the opportunity to revisit their plans (e.g., because they retained copies), those plans were less effective.”
  • Elaboration (Table 4). Time and place .46; time, place and how or for how long .24.

What could have come out otherwise: scheduling specifies the same when, where and what, and could have done as well as the link; a written copy could have helped as a reminder, as the authors thought possible (p. 165).

What this does not say

  • That format causes the difference. Contingent and schedule plans come from different studies, outcomes and settings; no within-study comparison is pooled.
  • Why recording hurts. Deliberation undermining automaticity is the authors’ reading; it was not measured.
  • That the moderator estimates are bias-corrected. They are not.

Connections

  • CLAIM-443. The claim’s mechanism is learned relations, not fixed behaviour. That the conditional link outperforms a schedule of the same behaviour is consistent with the link being what matters, though the link here runs from cue to action. That revisiting the plan weakens it is consistent with the plan’s value being deliberation removed from the moment: the amortization side of the claim, shown here only as an outcome difference, not as computation saved.
  • THEORY-913 holds the automaticity evidence the authors’ reading leans on.

Backlinks