An experimental investigation of breaking learnt habits with verbal implementation intentions

Verhoeven, Arno; Kindt, Merel; Zomer, Colene; Wit, Sanne de

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.05.008

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, it is possible that (some) participants use implementation-intention-like strategies spontaneously when performing this task (see Verhoeven et al, 2018 for a similar argument), by focusing on the required S-R mappings. If this is the case, then goal intentions may have hindered this spontaneous strategy (as opposed to implementation intentions encouraging S-R learning).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instant habits versus flexible tenacity: do implementation intentions accelerate habit formation?

Timmeren¹,

Wit²

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementation intentions (strategic if-then plans) have been shown to support behaviour change. This may be achieved by mentally forming stimulus-response associations, thereby promoting habit formation. Does this deliberate attempt to install ‘strategic automaticity’ only offer advantages, or does it also come at the cost of the reduced flexibility that characterizes learnt habits? To investigate this, we tested healthy, young participants on a computerized instrumental learning task. Critically, we introduced implementation intentions (e.g., if I see stimulus X, then I will respond) versus goal intentions (e.g., for outcome Z, I will respond) during instrumental acquisition, and subsequently assessed behavioural flexibility in an outcome-revaluation test. In Experiment 1, we conducted a between-subjects manipulation of strategic planning, and in Experiment 2 a within-subject manipulation. We hypothesized that implementation intentions would lead to strong stimulus-response associations and consequently impair performance when the signalled outcome value changed and therefore required a different response, while benefitting performance when the outcome value (and required response) remained the same. We found that implementation intentions supported instrumental learning more than goal intentions, but impaired test performance overall (most robustly in Experiment 2), irrespective of whether the signalled outcome value had changed. We argue that this general detrimental effect of implementation intentions on test performance is likely a consequence of its negative effect on stimulus-outcome learning. Our findings indicate that implementation intentions may support efficient and fast behavioural execution, but warrant caution in applying these to situations where the agent does not already possess perfect knowledge of behavioural contingencies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instant habits versus flexible tenacity: do implementation intentions accelerate habit formation?

Timmeren¹,

Wit²

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, this does not imply that implementation intentions necessarily suffer from ironic effects. First, there are also studies showing that even negation implementation intentions can be effective (e.g., Verhoeven et al, 2017 ). Second, implementation intentions specifying to ignore undesired critical cues like intrusive thoughts and negative affect also work well (e.g., Achtziger et al, 2008 ; Gallo et al, 2009 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

That Escalated Quickly—Planning to Ignore RPE Can Backfire

Bieleke

Wolff

2017

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) are routinely assessed in exercise science and RPE is substantially associated with physiological criterion measures. According to the psychobiological model of endurance, RPE is a central limiting factor in performance. While RPE is known to be affected by psychological manipulations, it remains to be examined whether RPE can be self-regulated during static muscular endurance exercises to enhance performance. In this experiment, we investigate the effectiveness of the widely used and recommended self-regulation strategy of if-then planning (i.e., implementation intentions) in down-regulating RPE and improving performance in a static muscular endurance task. 62 female students (age: M = 23.7 years, SD = 4.0) were randomly assigned to an implementation intention or a control condition and performed a static muscular endurance task. They held two intertwined rings as long as possible while avoiding contacts between the rings. In the implementation intention condition, participants had an if-then plan: “If the task becomes too strenuous for me, then I ignore the strain and tell myself: Keep going!” Every 25 ± 10 s participants reported their RPE along with their perceived pain. Endurance performance was measured as time to failure, along with contact errors as a measure of performance quality. No differences emerged between implementation intention and control participants regarding time to failure and performance quality. However, mixed-effects model analyses revealed a significant Time-to-Failure × Condition interaction for RPE. Compared to the control condition, participants in the implementation intention condition reported substantially greater increases in RPE during the second half of the task and reached higher total values of RPE before task termination. A similar but weaker pattern evinced for perceived pain. Our results demonstrate that RPE during an endurance task can be self-regulated with if-then plans. This finding is particularly important given how frequently RPE is used in exercise science as a correlate of physiological processes that ultimately limit performance. Unexpectedly, participants with implementation intentions reported higher RPE than control participants. This suggests that strategies to self-regulate RPE might have ironic effects that hamper performance, maybe by increasing attention to RPE. This implication is important for exercise physiologists, athletes and coaches.

show abstract

“…Based on the current findings, it is difficult to determine whether implementation intentions had an adverse effect on test performance or goal intentions had a beneficial effect, or indeed both. Specifically, it is possible that (some) participants use implementationintention-like strategies spontaneously when performing this task (see Verhoeven et al, 2018 for a similar argument), by focusing on the required S-R mappings. If this is the case, then goal intentions may have hindered this spontaneous strategy (as opposed to implementation intentions encouraging S-R learning).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instant habits versus flexible tenacity: Do implementation intentions accelerate habit formation?

Timmeren

Wit

2022

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementation intentions (strategic if-then plans) have been shown to support behaviour change. This may be achieved by mentally forming stimulus-response associations, thereby promoting habit formation. Does this deliberate attempt to install ‘strategic automaticity’ only offer advantages, or does it also come at the cost of reduced flexibility that characterizes learnt habits? To investigate this, we tested healthy, young participants on a computerized instrumental learning task. Critically, we introduced implementation intentions (‘if I see stimulus X, then I will respond’) versus goal intentions (‘for outcome Z, I will respond)’ during instrumental acquisition, and subsequently assessed behavioural flexibility in an outcome-revaluation test. In Experiment 1, we conducted a between-subjects manipulation of strategic planning, and in Experiment 2 a within-subject manipulation. We hypothesized that implementation intentions would lead to strong stimulus-response associations and consequently impair performance when the signalled outcome value changed and therefore required a different response, while benefitting performance when the outcome value (and required response) remained the same. We found that implementation intentions supported instrumental learning, but impaired test performance overall (most robustly in Experiment 2), irrespective of whether the signalled outcome value had changed. We argue that this general detrimental effect of implementation intentions on test performance is likely a consequence of their negative effect on stimulus-outcome learning. Our findings warranting caution in applying these to situations where the agent does not already possess perfect knowledge of behavioural contingencies. While implementation intentions may support efficient and fast behavioural execution, this may come at the expense of behavioural flexibility.

show abstract

An experimental investigation of breaking learnt habits with verbal implementation intentions

Cited by 12 publications

References 45 publications

Instant habits versus flexible tenacity: do implementation intentions accelerate habit formation?

Instant habits versus flexible tenacity: do implementation intentions accelerate habit formation?

That Escalated Quickly—Planning to Ignore RPE Can Backfire

Instant habits versus flexible tenacity: Do implementation intentions accelerate habit formation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About