Christopher J Armitage1. 1. Centre for Research in Social Attitudes, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TP, United Kingdom. c.j.armitage@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of implementation intentions to decrease alcohol consumption and control for possible demand characteristics by employing an active control condition and contrasting experimenter-provided with self-generated implementation intentions. DESIGN:Two hundred forty-eight participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 conditions: questionnaire-only; questionnaire plus planning instruction; questionnaire, planning instruction plus experimenter-provided implementation intention; or questionnaire, planning instruction plus self-generated implementation intention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Alcohol intake. RESULTS: There were clinically and statistically significant decreases in alcohol consumption in the 2 experimental conditions, but not in the 2 control conditions, F(3, 237) = 3.34, p < .05, etap(2) = .04. There were no significant differences between experimenter-provided and self-generated implementation intentions (p = .62). Compliance moderated the effects of self-generated implementation intentions only, such that alcohol intake only significantly decreased in participants who complied with the instructions, F(1, 52) = 4.20, p < .05, etap(2) = .07. However, simply choosing an experimenter-provided implementation intention was just as effective as writing it out in full, implying that implementation intentions work even with minimal information processing. CONCLUSION: The findings further support use of implementation intentions to protect against health risk behaviors and are congruent with laboratory research showing that implementation intentions are a case of strategic automaticity. Copyright 2009 APA, all rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of implementation intentions to decrease alcohol consumption and control for possible demand characteristics by employing an active control condition and contrasting experimenter-provided with self-generated implementation intentions. DESIGN: Two hundred forty-eight participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 conditions: questionnaire-only; questionnaire plus planning instruction; questionnaire, planning instruction plus experimenter-provided implementation intention; or questionnaire, planning instruction plus self-generated implementation intention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Alcohol intake. RESULTS: There were clinically and statistically significant decreases in alcohol consumption in the 2 experimental conditions, but not in the 2 control conditions, F(3, 237) = 3.34, p < .05, etap(2) = .04. There were no significant differences between experimenter-provided and self-generated implementation intentions (p = .62). Compliance moderated the effects of self-generated implementation intentions only, such that alcohol intake only significantly decreased in participants who complied with the instructions, F(1, 52) = 4.20, p < .05, etap(2) = .07. However, simply choosing an experimenter-provided implementation intention was just as effective as writing it out in full, implying that implementation intentions work even with minimal information processing. CONCLUSION: The findings further support use of implementation intentions to protect against health risk behaviors and are congruent with laboratory research showing that implementation intentions are a case of strategic automaticity. Copyright 2009 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Martin S Hagger; Adam Lonsdale; Andre Koka; Vello Hein; Heidi Pasi; Taru Lintunen; Nikos L D Chatzisarantis Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2012-03
Authors: Lara N Moody; Allison N Tegge; Lindsey M Poe; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Warren K Bickel Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 3.913