nucleation

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

3 min read

Properties6
StatusActive
Version2
Tagsmotivation, behavioral-integration, cognition
SourceLIT-1497 — Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta‐analysis of Effects and Processes
Bears onQUESTION-308 — Do the process effects of implementation intentions, the immediacy, efficiency under load and running without conscious intent of the planned response and the better detection of its cue, survive correction for publication bias or preregistered replication, and do they mediate goal attainment rather than merely accompany it?
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

Graph View

Source

Gollwitzer & Sheeran, LIT-1497, read in full in NOTE-1124 from the KOPS scan of the published chapter: pp. 83–86, 97, 99–100 and 106, with Table V.

What was actually shown

  • The then-component (Table V, p. 97). Against participants with the goal intention only, planned responses were more immediate (d = .77, k = 7), efficient under a concurrent load (d = .85, k = 7) and independent of conscious intent (d = .72, k = 3, from subliminal priming of the cue or of the goal; pp. 85–86).
  • The if-component (Table V). Detection, discrimination, accessibility, attention and memory for the planned cue, d = .80 over 6 tests, three of the five measures from one test each.
  • Mediation (p. 106). Cue accessibility mediated goal attainment in one study and, with the strength of the cue–response link, in a second. Immediacy, efficiency and lack of intent had not been tested as mediators.
  • The authors’ reading. Forming the plan “involves a strategic abdication of effortful action control” (p. 84); “forming an implementation intention means deciding these issues in advance, thereby delegating the control of goal-directed behavior to specified situational cues” (p. 100).

What could have come out otherwise: planned responses could have been no faster than intended ones, or slowed by a concurrent task as deliberate responses are.

What this does not say

  • That the processes produce the effect on goal attainment. Only accessibility and link strength were tested as mediators, in two studies.
  • That the effects are as large as reported. Fixed-effect pooling, small k, many tests from the authors’ groups, and no correction for publication bias; the 2024 review finds that bias substantial overall (THEORY-918).
  • That the plan makes control unconditional. The same chapter reports plan effects gated by the goal intention (THEORY-904).
  • That plans are habits. The authors’ figure is “instant habits”; the habit-like features were measured, not the history that makes a habit.

Connections

  • CLAIM-443. The claim cites implementation intentions as pre-arranged links of situation to response. This is what the links do, as measured: a response fixed in advance and triggered by its cue, with later deliberation and effort saved. In the claim’s terms it is a prior over actions, not over which process governs; and the efficiency and conserved-capability results are measured savings of later work, the evidence the claim says persistence alone cannot give, for a cached action.
  • CLAIM-358 and QUESTION-095. The plainest case the record holds of a decision cached and reused at lower cost.

Note of 2026-10-30: the dropped clause

The tenth status review’s narrowing dropped one clause: that “the planned cues became more accessible (d = .80, k = 6)”. It was imprecise. Table V’s if-component pools detection, discrimination, accessibility, attention and memory for the planned cue, three of the five measures from one test each, so the d = .80 is not an estimate of accessibility. That is the record’s mis-statement of the table, not a wider claim the source makes, so it is kind 3 under ADR-047 and gets this note only. The review’s other changes, naming the fixed-effect pooling, the missing bias correction and the goal-intention comparison, make explicit what the old title left implicit and drop nothing. Whether the process effects survive correction and mediate goal attainment was not claimed by either title and stays QUESTION-308 (kind 4).

Backlinks