LECTURE 6
Endophenotype = Biological or psychological phenomena of a disorder believed to be in the causal chain between genetic
contributions to a disorder and diagnosable symptoms of psychopathology.
Intention-behavior gap = The phenomenon that people have explicit decisions to change their behavior (e.g., being physically
active on a regular basis) but fail to take action.
- Medium-large change in intention → small-to-medium change in behavior (gap between intention and behavior)
The intention-behavior gap poses a challenge for motivational models, according to
which intention is the main determinant of behavior:
• Health Belief Model
• Theory of Reasoned Action
• Theory of Planned Behavior (most famous) - criticized by intention-behavior gap model
Theory of planned behavior
- Intention (the motivation required to perform a particular behavior) as the
proximal determinant of behavior
- Attitudes: general pos/neg evaluation of behavior
- Subjective norms: global perception of social pressure
- Perceived behavioral control, related to ‘self-efficacy’
As behavior repeatedly takes place, habit increases and becomes a better predictor of behavior than
behavioral intentions. (Habit is important determinant of behavior)
- The relationship between intention and actually buying fast food was only there if there was a
weak habit. If someone buys a lot of fast food and it is a rigid habit, this is very indicative of
behavior.
Habits are instrumental responses that are triggered by stimuli, and that do not depend on the current
motivation for the outcome of the behavior. (= Law of effect)
Diary research suggests that almost half of our daily behaviors are performed in the same manner in the
same situations. So habits likely play an important role in everyday behavior, for better or for worse.
- We must make automatic and habitual, as early as possible, as many useful actions as we can, and
guard against the growing into ways that are likely to be disadvantageous to us, as we should guard
against the plague. (William James) → Start early in life with habits because that is who you will be.
How can we measure real-life habits?
1. Field experiment
2. Self-report measures
3. Primed lexical-decision task
Field experiment of snacking habits
Method:
- 98 cinema-visitors were offered popcorn
- Participants were randomly assigned to receive popcorn that was (unbeknownst to them) either fresh (popped 1 hr before
the session) or stale (popped 7 days before the session).
- On a 7-point scale, participants indicated how frequently in the past they ate popcorn in movie theaters (always → never).
- After the movie watching, the experimenters measured the amount of popcorn eaten by each participant.
Results cinema context:
- Low and moderate habit participants: stale < fresh
- High habit participants: stale = fresh
Results meeting room context:
- All participants: stale < fresh (So context is very important!)
Self-report measures
a) Frequency measures:
- Frequency of past behavior
- Past frequency X context stability
*And with some experimental designs, frequency can be measured objectively of course!
b) Response generating measure:
- Response frequency measure
- E.g. how many times someone goes somewhere and what kind of transport they use, they should answer
as quickly as possible. The faster the response, the stronger the habit (indirect indication)
1
, c) Questionnaires that tap into the subjective experience of
habit/automaticity:
- (12-item) self-report habit index (participants rate on a
1-7 scale)
- (4-item) self-report behavioral automaticity index
Disadvantages self-report measures:
- Subjective
- Self-report of automatic behavior
- Nonetheless, there is evidence that such measures can
reliably predict behavior
Primed lexical decision task
- Objective measure
- Indication of associative stimulus-response (S-R) strength
Subliminal priming = Shown for a very short amount of time
Masking the prime = People cannot report they have seen the prime but it can still have an effect on people later
We have seen that intentions do not directly change the strength of the S-R associations, so small daily habits (e.g. snacking) can
really add up! Interventions that try to motivate, change goals and provide information do not directly impact on S-R associations, so
that is why it is so difficult to change habits.
Interim summary
- Behavior change is challenging → ‘Intention-behavior gap’
- Much of our daily behavior is habitual.
- Real-life habits can be measured directly with: SRHI, SRBAI, primed lexical decision task. An indirect indication can be
obtained from past frequency (x context) and response frequency.
- Intention X Habit interaction
- Weak habits: intentions are predictive
- Strong habits: no effect of intentions
Implementation intentions
- If-then plans that link a critical cue to an instrumental action
- Specific if-then structure is important
- "If I am in situation X, then I will perform action Y"
Counter-habitual implementation intentions = Specifically designed to
disrupt or replace existing habits or automatic behaviours (E.g.: ‘If I am
watching television and I want a snack, then I will reach for the fruit bowl
and take an apple instead of crisps’)
Strategic automaticity = The process by which specific plans
(implementation intentions) help automate goal-directed behaviors, making them
more efficient and less reliant on conscious effort.
Instant habit = By planning responses to specific cues in advance, implementation
intentions enable automatic activation of the behavior when the cue is
encountered. This reduces the need for conscious decision-making, similar to how
habits operate.
Prior research does not address the cognitive effects of formulating
counter-habitual implementation intentions → Two hypotheses as to why counter-habitual implementation intention may be helpful:
1. The counter-habitual implementation intentions cancel out the cognitive advantage of habitual responses by creating an
equally strong association between the cue and the specified response in the intention
2. The counter-habitual implementation intentions inhibit the habitual response by interfering with the alternative response
specified in the intention → Goal-systems theory: Posits that means that are instrumental in attaining a goal are
connected to this goal by a facilitative link, whereas the connection between two alternative means to achieve the same
goal is inhibitory (i.e. if a goal activates one means, the activation of an alternative means for this goal is inhibited)
(Holland)
In summary, while both habits and implementation intentions aim to facilitate behavior, habits are automatic behaviors formed
through repetition, whereas implementation intentions are deliberate plans that link specific cues to goal-directed actions.
Implementation intentions can help in the formation of new habits by providing a structured approach to consistently engage in the
desired behavior.
2
,Implementation intentions: how do they work? Coupon collection study - "if" part
Sample: 40 college students
Task: Collect coupon from cafetaria "Collect a coupon from the secretaries office before going to the cafeteria"
Manipulation: Plan when/where/how you will collect the coupon (related planning condition) versus how you will spend it (control)
Dependent measures:
- Lexical decision task (not primed): cue accessibility (neutral words versus experimental target words e.g. office and
corridor)
- Did they collect the coupon?
Results: Situational cues were more accessible in the planning condition and the participants in the planning condition collected the
coupon more often (80% vs 50%)
- This study was the first evidence that the heightened cue accessibility mediated the factors of implementation intentions
and coupon collection. So they wanted to see if the implementation intention made the cue more available, that is why it
was not primed. The target word is the cue in the task. The study showed that when students made plans about how they
would collect the coupon, it made the related words ("office," "corridor," etc.) easier for them to recognize. This increased
"accessibility" of the situational cues likely helped them remember to collect the coupon. So, planning made the cues more
available in their minds, which in turn increased the likelihood of them following through on collecting the coupon.
Implementation intentions: How do they work? - Both
parts
Sample: 74 college students
Task: Primed LDT
GI group instruction: Speed up your response to (the
nonword) avenda by familiarizing yourself with that
item
II group: "If I see avenda, then I will press the key
especially quickly"
- This study shows that implementation
intentions can lead to higher accessibility of
the cue ánd better cue-response link. This
suggests that implementation intentions not
only make the cue more available in participants' minds but also facilitate faster and more accurate responses to the cue.
Essentially, when participants created a plan for how to respond to the cue, they were not only more likely to notice the cue
quickly but also to act on it swiftly and accurately.
Implementation intentions support behavior change better than goal intentions. The two working mechanisms of implementation
intentions is:
1. If: heightened cue accessibility
2. If then: Strong S-R link leads to strategic automaticity
- Furthermore, implementation intentions promote behavioral repetition in a stable context, so also gradual habit formation.
7 steps for behavior change
1. Step 1: Choose a behavior that you are highly motivated to change.
- Strong intention and intrinsic motivation are crucial for effectiveness of implementation intentions
- Combination with Motivational Interviewing could be beneficial
2. Step 2: Determine the critical cue: in which situation do you carry out the “bad habit”? (Which "if"?)
- Preferentially this is a cue (or behavior) that reliably precedes the behavior and that can easily be noticed.
- External vs. internal cue (e.g. boredom, stress)?
- Implementation intentions with cue provided by researcher OR personal cue
a. Situational cues → ‘If I come home and I feel like a snack, then I will eat an apple!’
b. Motivational cues (comparable with internal cues) → ‘If I am bored and I feel like a snack, then I will eat
an apple!’
- Dependent variable: change in snacking?
Results:
Implementation intention:
- More healthy snacks
- Less unhealthy snacks
- But only when a personal motivational cue was used… But finding the
crucial is not easy! How can you determine the triggers of your bad
habits?
Strategy 1: Cue monitoring diary helps to identify the critical cue
Strategy 2: Mental contrasting helps to identify the critical cue
3
, - Mental contrasting entails contrasting a positive future with negative reality. "If I come home tired I will put on my
running shoes and go for a run".
Two reasons that mental contrasting works:
- Raises awareness of the distance from the goal → goal commitment
- Aids identification of obstacles/critical cues that hinder goal realization → ‘If...!’
3. Step 3: Can the critical cue easily be avoided/changed?
Habit discontinuity hypothesis = Avoiding the old context disrupts old S-R habits, which may allow one to rethink and
initiate new behaviours and choices. → ‘stimulus control’ (avoid habit trigger/critical cue)
→ Change the context to promote the desired behavior
- E.g., ‘foodscapes’ influence food consumption
- Similarly, fruit can be positioned in prominent places in, e.g., canteens, to ‘nudge’ healthy choices
Avoiding or changing the triggers of “bad habits” is an effective strategy, but not always feasible… In this case, the next
step is to formulate an effective implementation intention to override the “bad habit”...
4. Step 4: Link the right action to your critical cue. (Which 'then')
Ironic Process Theory = Attempts to suppress a thought actually render it more salient and makes one móre conscious of
it.
The thought of 'if…, then NOT':
- Heightens accessibility of (chocolate) habit
- Leads to more habitual behavior (eating more chocolate)
- Therefore: , a replacement II is preferable: “ If..., then…
[alternative]” → The idea is that the old habit becomes
weaker and the new habit becomes stronger.
Behavioral study 3 conditions:
a) Goal intention only: I will eat less chocolate
b) Negotiation II: If 'situation X', then I wont eat chocolate!
c) Replacement II: If 'situation X', then I will eat an apple
instead of chocolate!
Study:
Participants: 80 female students
Goal: Eat less of habitual snack
Intentions: goal vs goal + implementation intention
- Generate habitual means (e.g. chips) and healthy alternative (e.g. apple) for
snacking at home
- Using personal (idiosyncratic cues)
- DV: RY on Primed lexical decision task
5. Step 5: Continue to monitor your behavior and adjust your plan if it is no longer optimal.
6. Step 6: Once you have formed this habit, you can consider changing other habits.
Small steps!
7. Step 7: Celebrate your success / reward yourself...
BREAKING HABITS WITH IMPLEMENTATION INTENTIONS: A TEST OF UNDERLYING PROCESSES
Implementation intentions specifying the replacement of a habitual response with an alternative response in a critical situation can
overrule habits. In three experiments the cognitive effects of such counterhabitual implementation intentions were investigated.
Results showed that implementation intentions eliminated the cognitive advantage of the habitual means in the “horse race” with the
alternative response.That is, in the control condition, the habitual means was more accessible than the alternative means on
encountering the critical situation, but this was no longer the case when implementation intentions were formulated. However, the
cognitive advantage of the habitual means was not immediately replaced by an automatic activation of the alternative means. This
suggests that formulating counterhabitual implementation intentions increases individuals’ flexibility to choose which behavior to
perform in the critical situation but that actual behavior will depart from their habits only to the extent that individuals have strong
alternative goal intentions.
One self-regulatory strategy that has been proposed to support individuals in managing the critical stimulus in such a way that they
are able to act on their counterhabitual intentions is to furnish one's intentions with implementation intentions.
Implementation intentions = Simple action plans stipulating where, when, and how one will perform an intended behavior, which
have been found to promote goal-directed action. Instead of simply specifying an end state one wants to reach, as is the case for
intentions (“I intend to achieve Z”), implementation intentions specify the where, when, and how of reaching this end state and take
the form of “If I am in situation X, then I will perform goal-directed behavior Y”.
a) By specifying a situation for enacting one's intentions in advance, the mental representation of this critical situation is highly
accessible in memory and therefore more easily detected as a good opportunity to act on one's intentions.
b) By linking this critical situation to a specific goal-directed behavior in an if-then structure, the control of the behavior is
delegated from the self to the specified situational cue, resulting in automatic elicitation of this goal-directed behavior when
the situation is encountered.
4
Endophenotype = Biological or psychological phenomena of a disorder believed to be in the causal chain between genetic
contributions to a disorder and diagnosable symptoms of psychopathology.
Intention-behavior gap = The phenomenon that people have explicit decisions to change their behavior (e.g., being physically
active on a regular basis) but fail to take action.
- Medium-large change in intention → small-to-medium change in behavior (gap between intention and behavior)
The intention-behavior gap poses a challenge for motivational models, according to
which intention is the main determinant of behavior:
• Health Belief Model
• Theory of Reasoned Action
• Theory of Planned Behavior (most famous) - criticized by intention-behavior gap model
Theory of planned behavior
- Intention (the motivation required to perform a particular behavior) as the
proximal determinant of behavior
- Attitudes: general pos/neg evaluation of behavior
- Subjective norms: global perception of social pressure
- Perceived behavioral control, related to ‘self-efficacy’
As behavior repeatedly takes place, habit increases and becomes a better predictor of behavior than
behavioral intentions. (Habit is important determinant of behavior)
- The relationship between intention and actually buying fast food was only there if there was a
weak habit. If someone buys a lot of fast food and it is a rigid habit, this is very indicative of
behavior.
Habits are instrumental responses that are triggered by stimuli, and that do not depend on the current
motivation for the outcome of the behavior. (= Law of effect)
Diary research suggests that almost half of our daily behaviors are performed in the same manner in the
same situations. So habits likely play an important role in everyday behavior, for better or for worse.
- We must make automatic and habitual, as early as possible, as many useful actions as we can, and
guard against the growing into ways that are likely to be disadvantageous to us, as we should guard
against the plague. (William James) → Start early in life with habits because that is who you will be.
How can we measure real-life habits?
1. Field experiment
2. Self-report measures
3. Primed lexical-decision task
Field experiment of snacking habits
Method:
- 98 cinema-visitors were offered popcorn
- Participants were randomly assigned to receive popcorn that was (unbeknownst to them) either fresh (popped 1 hr before
the session) or stale (popped 7 days before the session).
- On a 7-point scale, participants indicated how frequently in the past they ate popcorn in movie theaters (always → never).
- After the movie watching, the experimenters measured the amount of popcorn eaten by each participant.
Results cinema context:
- Low and moderate habit participants: stale < fresh
- High habit participants: stale = fresh
Results meeting room context:
- All participants: stale < fresh (So context is very important!)
Self-report measures
a) Frequency measures:
- Frequency of past behavior
- Past frequency X context stability
*And with some experimental designs, frequency can be measured objectively of course!
b) Response generating measure:
- Response frequency measure
- E.g. how many times someone goes somewhere and what kind of transport they use, they should answer
as quickly as possible. The faster the response, the stronger the habit (indirect indication)
1
, c) Questionnaires that tap into the subjective experience of
habit/automaticity:
- (12-item) self-report habit index (participants rate on a
1-7 scale)
- (4-item) self-report behavioral automaticity index
Disadvantages self-report measures:
- Subjective
- Self-report of automatic behavior
- Nonetheless, there is evidence that such measures can
reliably predict behavior
Primed lexical decision task
- Objective measure
- Indication of associative stimulus-response (S-R) strength
Subliminal priming = Shown for a very short amount of time
Masking the prime = People cannot report they have seen the prime but it can still have an effect on people later
We have seen that intentions do not directly change the strength of the S-R associations, so small daily habits (e.g. snacking) can
really add up! Interventions that try to motivate, change goals and provide information do not directly impact on S-R associations, so
that is why it is so difficult to change habits.
Interim summary
- Behavior change is challenging → ‘Intention-behavior gap’
- Much of our daily behavior is habitual.
- Real-life habits can be measured directly with: SRHI, SRBAI, primed lexical decision task. An indirect indication can be
obtained from past frequency (x context) and response frequency.
- Intention X Habit interaction
- Weak habits: intentions are predictive
- Strong habits: no effect of intentions
Implementation intentions
- If-then plans that link a critical cue to an instrumental action
- Specific if-then structure is important
- "If I am in situation X, then I will perform action Y"
Counter-habitual implementation intentions = Specifically designed to
disrupt or replace existing habits or automatic behaviours (E.g.: ‘If I am
watching television and I want a snack, then I will reach for the fruit bowl
and take an apple instead of crisps’)
Strategic automaticity = The process by which specific plans
(implementation intentions) help automate goal-directed behaviors, making them
more efficient and less reliant on conscious effort.
Instant habit = By planning responses to specific cues in advance, implementation
intentions enable automatic activation of the behavior when the cue is
encountered. This reduces the need for conscious decision-making, similar to how
habits operate.
Prior research does not address the cognitive effects of formulating
counter-habitual implementation intentions → Two hypotheses as to why counter-habitual implementation intention may be helpful:
1. The counter-habitual implementation intentions cancel out the cognitive advantage of habitual responses by creating an
equally strong association between the cue and the specified response in the intention
2. The counter-habitual implementation intentions inhibit the habitual response by interfering with the alternative response
specified in the intention → Goal-systems theory: Posits that means that are instrumental in attaining a goal are
connected to this goal by a facilitative link, whereas the connection between two alternative means to achieve the same
goal is inhibitory (i.e. if a goal activates one means, the activation of an alternative means for this goal is inhibited)
(Holland)
In summary, while both habits and implementation intentions aim to facilitate behavior, habits are automatic behaviors formed
through repetition, whereas implementation intentions are deliberate plans that link specific cues to goal-directed actions.
Implementation intentions can help in the formation of new habits by providing a structured approach to consistently engage in the
desired behavior.
2
,Implementation intentions: how do they work? Coupon collection study - "if" part
Sample: 40 college students
Task: Collect coupon from cafetaria "Collect a coupon from the secretaries office before going to the cafeteria"
Manipulation: Plan when/where/how you will collect the coupon (related planning condition) versus how you will spend it (control)
Dependent measures:
- Lexical decision task (not primed): cue accessibility (neutral words versus experimental target words e.g. office and
corridor)
- Did they collect the coupon?
Results: Situational cues were more accessible in the planning condition and the participants in the planning condition collected the
coupon more often (80% vs 50%)
- This study was the first evidence that the heightened cue accessibility mediated the factors of implementation intentions
and coupon collection. So they wanted to see if the implementation intention made the cue more available, that is why it
was not primed. The target word is the cue in the task. The study showed that when students made plans about how they
would collect the coupon, it made the related words ("office," "corridor," etc.) easier for them to recognize. This increased
"accessibility" of the situational cues likely helped them remember to collect the coupon. So, planning made the cues more
available in their minds, which in turn increased the likelihood of them following through on collecting the coupon.
Implementation intentions: How do they work? - Both
parts
Sample: 74 college students
Task: Primed LDT
GI group instruction: Speed up your response to (the
nonword) avenda by familiarizing yourself with that
item
II group: "If I see avenda, then I will press the key
especially quickly"
- This study shows that implementation
intentions can lead to higher accessibility of
the cue ánd better cue-response link. This
suggests that implementation intentions not
only make the cue more available in participants' minds but also facilitate faster and more accurate responses to the cue.
Essentially, when participants created a plan for how to respond to the cue, they were not only more likely to notice the cue
quickly but also to act on it swiftly and accurately.
Implementation intentions support behavior change better than goal intentions. The two working mechanisms of implementation
intentions is:
1. If: heightened cue accessibility
2. If then: Strong S-R link leads to strategic automaticity
- Furthermore, implementation intentions promote behavioral repetition in a stable context, so also gradual habit formation.
7 steps for behavior change
1. Step 1: Choose a behavior that you are highly motivated to change.
- Strong intention and intrinsic motivation are crucial for effectiveness of implementation intentions
- Combination with Motivational Interviewing could be beneficial
2. Step 2: Determine the critical cue: in which situation do you carry out the “bad habit”? (Which "if"?)
- Preferentially this is a cue (or behavior) that reliably precedes the behavior and that can easily be noticed.
- External vs. internal cue (e.g. boredom, stress)?
- Implementation intentions with cue provided by researcher OR personal cue
a. Situational cues → ‘If I come home and I feel like a snack, then I will eat an apple!’
b. Motivational cues (comparable with internal cues) → ‘If I am bored and I feel like a snack, then I will eat
an apple!’
- Dependent variable: change in snacking?
Results:
Implementation intention:
- More healthy snacks
- Less unhealthy snacks
- But only when a personal motivational cue was used… But finding the
crucial is not easy! How can you determine the triggers of your bad
habits?
Strategy 1: Cue monitoring diary helps to identify the critical cue
Strategy 2: Mental contrasting helps to identify the critical cue
3
, - Mental contrasting entails contrasting a positive future with negative reality. "If I come home tired I will put on my
running shoes and go for a run".
Two reasons that mental contrasting works:
- Raises awareness of the distance from the goal → goal commitment
- Aids identification of obstacles/critical cues that hinder goal realization → ‘If...!’
3. Step 3: Can the critical cue easily be avoided/changed?
Habit discontinuity hypothesis = Avoiding the old context disrupts old S-R habits, which may allow one to rethink and
initiate new behaviours and choices. → ‘stimulus control’ (avoid habit trigger/critical cue)
→ Change the context to promote the desired behavior
- E.g., ‘foodscapes’ influence food consumption
- Similarly, fruit can be positioned in prominent places in, e.g., canteens, to ‘nudge’ healthy choices
Avoiding or changing the triggers of “bad habits” is an effective strategy, but not always feasible… In this case, the next
step is to formulate an effective implementation intention to override the “bad habit”...
4. Step 4: Link the right action to your critical cue. (Which 'then')
Ironic Process Theory = Attempts to suppress a thought actually render it more salient and makes one móre conscious of
it.
The thought of 'if…, then NOT':
- Heightens accessibility of (chocolate) habit
- Leads to more habitual behavior (eating more chocolate)
- Therefore: , a replacement II is preferable: “ If..., then…
[alternative]” → The idea is that the old habit becomes
weaker and the new habit becomes stronger.
Behavioral study 3 conditions:
a) Goal intention only: I will eat less chocolate
b) Negotiation II: If 'situation X', then I wont eat chocolate!
c) Replacement II: If 'situation X', then I will eat an apple
instead of chocolate!
Study:
Participants: 80 female students
Goal: Eat less of habitual snack
Intentions: goal vs goal + implementation intention
- Generate habitual means (e.g. chips) and healthy alternative (e.g. apple) for
snacking at home
- Using personal (idiosyncratic cues)
- DV: RY on Primed lexical decision task
5. Step 5: Continue to monitor your behavior and adjust your plan if it is no longer optimal.
6. Step 6: Once you have formed this habit, you can consider changing other habits.
Small steps!
7. Step 7: Celebrate your success / reward yourself...
BREAKING HABITS WITH IMPLEMENTATION INTENTIONS: A TEST OF UNDERLYING PROCESSES
Implementation intentions specifying the replacement of a habitual response with an alternative response in a critical situation can
overrule habits. In three experiments the cognitive effects of such counterhabitual implementation intentions were investigated.
Results showed that implementation intentions eliminated the cognitive advantage of the habitual means in the “horse race” with the
alternative response.That is, in the control condition, the habitual means was more accessible than the alternative means on
encountering the critical situation, but this was no longer the case when implementation intentions were formulated. However, the
cognitive advantage of the habitual means was not immediately replaced by an automatic activation of the alternative means. This
suggests that formulating counterhabitual implementation intentions increases individuals’ flexibility to choose which behavior to
perform in the critical situation but that actual behavior will depart from their habits only to the extent that individuals have strong
alternative goal intentions.
One self-regulatory strategy that has been proposed to support individuals in managing the critical stimulus in such a way that they
are able to act on their counterhabitual intentions is to furnish one's intentions with implementation intentions.
Implementation intentions = Simple action plans stipulating where, when, and how one will perform an intended behavior, which
have been found to promote goal-directed action. Instead of simply specifying an end state one wants to reach, as is the case for
intentions (“I intend to achieve Z”), implementation intentions specify the where, when, and how of reaching this end state and take
the form of “If I am in situation X, then I will perform goal-directed behavior Y”.
a) By specifying a situation for enacting one's intentions in advance, the mental representation of this critical situation is highly
accessible in memory and therefore more easily detected as a good opportunity to act on one's intentions.
b) By linking this critical situation to a specific goal-directed behavior in an if-then structure, the control of the behavior is
delegated from the self to the specified situational cue, resulting in automatic elicitation of this goal-directed behavior when
the situation is encountered.
4
