The theoretical distinction between goal intentions ("I intend to achieve -c") and implementation intentions ("I intend to perform goal-directed behavior y when I encounter situation z"; P. M. Gollwitzer, 1993) is explored by assessing the completion rate of various goal projects. In correlational Study 1, difficult goal intentions were completed about 3 times more often when participants had furnished them with implementation intentions. In experimental Study 2, all participants were assigned the same difficult goal intention, and half were instructed to form implementation intentions. The beneficial effects of implementation intentions paralleled diose of Study 1. In experimental Study 3, implementation intentions were observed to facilitate the immediate initiation of goaldirected action when the intended opportunity was encountered. Implementation intentions are interpreted to be powerful self-regulatory tools for overcoming the typical obstacles associated with the initiation of goal-directed actions.

Implementation intentions ("If I encounter Situation X, then I'll perform Behavior Y!") are postulated to instigate automatic action initiation (P. M. Gollwitzer, 1993Gollwitzer, , 1999. In 4 studies, the hypothesis was tested that implementation intentions lead to immediate action initiation once the specified situation is encountered, even under conditions of high cognitive load. First, individuals whose action control is known to be hampered by disruptive cognitive business, such as opiate addicts under withdrawal (Study 1) and schizophrenic patients (Study 2), benefited from forming implementation intentions. Second, the beneficial effect of implementation intentions was also found in 2 experiments with university students (Studies 3 and 4) in which cognitive load was experimentally induced by using dual task paradigms. Results of the 4 studies suggest that forming implementation intentions instigates immediate action initiation that is also efficient.

We investigated the self-regulatory strategies people spontaneously use in their everyday lives to regulate their persistence during aversive activities. In pilot studies (pooled N = 794), we identified self-regulatory strategies from self-reports and generated hypotheses about individual differences in trait self-control predicting their use. Next, deploying ambulatory assessment (N = 264, 1940 reports of aversive/challenging activities), we investigated predictors of the strategies' self-reported use and effectiveness (trait self-control and demand types). The popularity of strategies varied across demands. In addition, people higher in trait self-control were more likely to focus on the positive consequences of a given activity, set goals, and use emotion regulation. Focusing on positive consequences, focusing on negative consequences (of not performing the activity), thinking of the near finish, and emotion regulation increased perceived self-regulatory success across demands, whereas distracting oneself from the aversive activity decreased it. None of these strategies, however, accounted for the beneficial effects of trait self-control on perceived self-regulatory success. Hence, trait self-control and strategy use appear to represent separate routes to good self-regulation. By considering trait-and process-approaches these findings promote a more comprehensive understanding of self-regulatory success and failure during people's daily attempts to regulate their persistence.

No abstract

Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan in Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press, New York, 1985) suggests that certain experiences, such as competence, are equally beneficial to everyone's well-being (universal hypothesis), whereas Motive Disposition Theory (McClelland in Human motivation. Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL, 1985) predicts that some people, such as those with a high achievement motive, should benefit particularly from such experiences (matching hypothesis). Existing research on motives as moderators of the relationship between basic need satisfaction and positive outcomes supports both these seemingly inconsistent views. Focusing on the achievement motive, we sought to resolve this inconsistency by considering the specificity of the outcome variables. When predicting domain-specific well-being and flow, the achievement motive should interact with felt competence. However, when it comes to predicting general well-being and flow, felt competence should unfold its effects without being moderated by the achievement motive. Two studies confirmed these assumptions indicating that the universal and matching hypotheses are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.