Regulating self-defensiveness: If–then plans prevent claiming and creating performance handicaps

Activation Versus Change as a Principle Underlying Intervention Strategies to Promote Health Behaviors

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Interventions are effective in promoting health behavior change to the extent that (a) intervention strategies modify targets (i.e., mechanisms of action), and (b) modifying targets leads to changes in behavior. To complement taxonomies that characterize the variety of strategies used in behavioral interventions, we outline a new principle that specifies how strategies modify targets and thereby promote behavior change. We distinguish two dimensions of targets-value (positive vs. negative) and accessibility (activation level)-and show that intervention strategies operate either by altering the value of what people think, feel, or want (target change) or by heightening the accessibility of behavior-related thoughts, feelings, and goals (target activation).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We review strategies designed to promote target activation and find that nudges, cue-reminders, goal priming, the question-behavior effect, and if-then planning are each effective in generating health behavior change, and that their effectiveness accrues from heightened accessibility of relevant targets. We also identify several other strategies that may operate, at least in part, via target activation (e.g., self-monitoring, message framing, anticipated regret inductions, and habits).

CONCLUSIONS

The Activation Vs. Change Principle (AVCP) offers a theoretically grounded and parsimonious means of distinguishing among intervention strategies. By focusing on how strategies modify targets, the AVCP can aid interventionists in deciding which intervention strategies to deploy and how to combine different strategies in behavioral trials. We outline a research agenda that could serve to further enhance the design and delivery of interventions to promote target activation.

Exploring Higher Education Pathways for Coping With the Threat of COVID-19: Does Parental Academic Background Matter?

First-generation students (FGS) are more likely to feel misplaced and struggle at university than students with university-educated parents (continuous-generation students; CGS). We assumed that the shutdowns during the Coronavirus-pandemic would particularly threaten FGS due to obstructed coping mechanisms. Specifically, FGS may show lower identification with the academic setting and lower perceived fairness of the university system (system justification). We investigated whether FGS and CGS used different defenses to cope with the shutdown threat in a large sample of German-speaking students (N = 848). Using Structural Equation Modeling, we found that for all students, independent of academic parental background, high levels of system justification were associated with perceiving the learning situation as less threatening, better coping with failure, and less helplessness. However, in comparison to CGS, FGS showed small but significant reductions in system justification and relied more on concrete personal relationships with other students as well as their academic identity to cope with the threatening situation. We discuss implications for helping FGS succeed at university.

Attitudes, Habits, and Behavior Change

Efforts to guide peoples' behavior toward environmental sustainability, good health, or new products have emphasized informational and attitude change strategies. There is evidence that changing attitudes leads to changes in behavior, yet this approach takes insufficient account of the nature and operation of habits, which form boundary conditions for attitude-directed interventions. Integration of research on attitudes and habits might enable investigators to identify when and how behavior change strategies will be most effective. How might attitudinally driven behavior change be consolidated into lasting habits? How do habits protect the individual against the vicissitudes of attitudes and temptations and promote goal achievement? How might attitudinal approaches aiming to change habits be improved by capitalizing on habit discontinuities and strategic planning? When and how might changing or creating habit architecture shape habits directly? A systematic approach to these questions might help move behavior change efforts from attitude change strategies to habit change strategies. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 73 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Using the theory of self-affirmation and self-regulation strategies of mental contrasting and forming implementation intentions to reduce social anxiety symptoms

Background and Objectives: Based on the results of past research on emotion regulation and positive behavioral change via self-affirmation, it was hypothesized that self-affirmation should help socially anxious individuals to reduce social anxiety symptoms. The effectiveness of a brief self-affirmation intervention framed in terms of implementation intentions (if-then plans with self-affirming cognitions) was compared against forming non-affirming implementation intentions (with distraction as a way of coping) and inactive control condition. Additionally, it was tested whether mental contrasting can augment the impact of the self-affirmation intervention. Design/Methods: Participants (N = 198, aged 18-45) were randomly assigned to one of three intervention conditions (self-affirming implementation intention, mental contrasting with self-affirming implementation intention, or non-affirming implementation intention) or an inactive control-group. Social anxiety symptoms were assessed at baseline and at one-week post-intervention. Results: The difference between the interventions and the control group was substantial. However, there were no differences in the reduction of overall social anxiety levels between the interventions. Each of the interventions produced a statistically significant reduction in social anxiety (Cohen's ds from -.40 to -.50). Conclusions: The results indicate no advantage for self-affirming over non-affirming implementation intentions in reducing social anxiety symptoms. Moreover, no superiority of mental contrasting was found.

Promoting the Self-Regulation of Stress in Health Care Providers: An Internet-Based Intervention

The aim of our internet-based intervention study was to find out whether healthcare professionals can autonomously down-regulate the stress they experience at their workplace, using an established self-regulation tool called Mental Contrasting with Implementation Intentions (MCII). Applying MCII to reduce stress implied for our participants to repeatedly engage in a mental exercise that (1) required specifying a wish related to reducing stress, (2) identifying and imagining its most desired positive outcome, (3) detecting and imagining the obstacle that holds them back, and (4) coming up with an if-then plan on how to overcome it. We recruited on-line nurses employed at various health institutions all over Germany, and randomly assigned participants to one of three groups. In the MCII group (n = 33), participants were taught how to use this exercise via email and the participants were asked to engage in the exercise on a daily basis for a period of 3 weeks. As compared to two control groups, one being a no-treatment control group (n = 35) and the other a modified MCII group (n = 32), our experimental MCII group showed a reduced stress level and an enhanced work engagement. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the present study as well as ways to intensify MCII effects on stress reduction.

Planning and Performance in Small Groups: Collective Implementation Intentions Enhance Group Goal Striving

There are two key motivators to perform well in a group: making a contribution that (a) is crucial for the group (indispensability) and that (b) the other group members recognize (identifiability). We argue that indispensability promotes setting collective (“We”) goals whereas identifiability induces individual (“I”) goals. Although both goals may enhance performance, they should align with different strategies. Whereas pursuing collective goals should involve more cooperation, pursuing individual goals should involve less cooperation. Two experiments support this reasoning and show that planning out collective goals with collective implementation intentions (cIIs or “We-plans”) relies on cooperation but planning out individual goals with individual implementation intentions (IIs or “I-plans”) does not. In Experiment 1, three-member groups first formed a collective or an individual goal and then performed a first round of a physical persistence task. Groups then either formed a respective implementation intention (cII or II) or a control plan and then performed a second round of the task. Although groups with cIIs and IIs performed better on a physical persistence task than respective control groups, only cII groups interacted more cooperatively during task performance. To confirm the causal role of these interaction processes, Experiment 2 used the same persistence task and manipulated whether groups could communicate: When communication was hindered, groups with cIIs but not groups with IIs performed worse. Communication thus qualifies as a process making cIIs effective. The present research offers a psychology of action account to small group performance.

Attenuating the Escalation of Commitment to a Faltering Project in Decision-Making Groups

When groups receive negative feedback on their progress toward a set goal, they often escalate rather than temper their commitment. To attenuate such escalation, we suggest initiating a self-distancing response (i.e., taking the perspective of a neutral observer) by forming implementation intentions when, where, and how to act (i.e., making if-then plans). Implementation intentions should help groups to translate a self-distancing intention into action. In line with this reasoning, only groups that had added implementation intentions to their goal to make optimal investment decisions reduced their high levels of investment (Study 1) or maintained their moderate levels of investment (Study 2) after negative feedback. Groups that had merely formed goal intentions, however, escalated even when their decision goal was supplemented with self-distancing instructions (Study 1), and they escalated as much as control groups without such a goal (Study 2). Implications for improving group decision making by implementation intentions are discussed.