MAKING INTENTIONS REALITY: SELF- MONITORING MODERATES IMPLEMENTATION INTENTION EFFECTS

(1)

MAKING INTENTIONS REALITY:

SELF-MONITORING MODERATES IMPLEMENTATION

INTENTION EFFECTS

by

Stella Vanek

(2)

MASTER THESIS

MAKING INTENTIONS REALITY:

SELF-MONITORING MODERATES IMPLEMENTATION

INTENTION EFFECTS

by

Stella Vanek

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc BA Marketing Management

September, 23

rd

2011

Leisteenstraat 21 9743VA Groningen phone: 004917623961442 email: stella.vanek@gmx.de Student number 1917609

(3)

ABSTRACT

Forming implementation intentions – verbally stating when, where and how a specific goal is in-tended to pursue - increases the likelihood of acting according to intentions. This current study aimed at examining a moderating effect of self-monitoring on the implementation-intentions-goal-pursuit- relationship. By means of goal pursuit, self-reported data on goal-directed behaviour, atti-tude towards the goal, and self-efficacy in goal pursuit was collected.

In line with the hypothesis, the results indicated that high self-monitors that formed an implementa-tion intenimplementa-tion had a significantly larger increase in goal-directed behaviour than low self-monitors that formed one. Results on attitude towards goal and self-efficacy in goal-pursuit showed no sig-nificant interaction effects.

Keywords: Implementation Intention; Self-Monitoring

(4)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Bob M. Fennis for his inspiring and challenging supervision: His kind support, the great discussions and his constructive feedback. Furthermore, I thank Dr. Marijke Leliveld for her enthusiasm and her thoughtful elaboration of my work as my second supervisor.

(5)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION……….…… 7

Academic Contribution………... 8

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK………... 9

Implementation Intentions………. 9

Self-monitoring and Implementation Intentions……… 10

3 METHOD………. 12

Participants and Design………. 12

Procedure………... 12 Baseline Questionnaire………. 13 Follow-up study………. 13 Debriefing………. 13 Independent variables……… 13 Implementation Intentions……… 13 Intention……… 14 Self-monitoring……….. 14 Mood………. 14 Dependent variables………... 14 Goal-directed behaviour………... 15

Attitude towards goal……… 15

Self-efficacy in goal pursuit……….. 15

4 RESULTS……… 16

Randomization Check……… 16

Goal-directed Behaviour……… 16

Attitude towards goal pursuit………. 17

Self-efficacy in goal-pursuit……….. 17

Intention to pursue goal………. 17

5 DISCUSSION……….. 18

Theoretical Implications……… 18

Social Relevance……… 20

(6)

Conclusion………. 21

REFERENCES……… 22

APPENDIX A……….………… 26

(7)

1 INTRODUCTION

People are generally eager to carry out their intentions. Even though intentions are the strongest predictor of behaviour (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006), research shows that only 28% of variance in behaviour is explained by intentions (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). Forming implementation inten-tions increases the likelihood of acting according to inteninten-tions (Fennis & Stroebe, 2010) by formu-lating additional action plans that specify “when, where and how one will act in order to achieve a specific goal” (Knäuper, Roseman, Johnson & Krantz, 2009). Implementation intentions – in this study abbreviated as II’s - thus link the intended action to a situational context; the person will be reminded on the intended action once experiencing the situation (Webb & Sheeran, 2007). They are verbal if-then statements, which are processed cognitively and more effective than relying only on willpower and motivation (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006).

In this paper I will argue that the impact of II’s on goal-pursuit is moderated by self-monitoring, such that high self-monitors experience a greater impact of implementation intentions on the ac-complishment of their intended goal-directed behaviour than low self-monitors.

Self-monitoring (abbreviated as SM) is the tendency of individuals to take different sources of information into account to guide their actions (Snyder & Cantor, 1980). Individuals either adapt the way they behave due to external and situational influences, which is true for high SM’s, or to feel mainly obligated to their own attitude and inner values like low SM’s (Snyder, 1974). This dis-position also influences the capability to carry out intended behaviour and to stay consistent throughout different situations (Ajzen et al., 1982; Zanna, Olson & Fazio, 1980).

High SM’s are - compared to low SM’s - highly concerned with the image they provide to the out-side world (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). The situational context and interpersonal cues guide their actions and self-presentation (Becherer & Richard, 1978; Snyder, 1974) and goal-directed behav-iour of high SM’s is consequently less predictable from their intentions if time passes by or the situation has changed (Ajzen, Timko & White, 1982).

Low SM’s instead try to behave primarily concurrent with their attitudes, emotions (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000) and values (Beer, Lassiter & Flannery, 1997) and remain thus more consistent throughout different occasions and times (Fennis & Stroebe, 2010). Subsequent behaviour of low SM’s is therefore more accurately predictable.

There are three arguments to expect a moderating role of self-monitoring on the relationship of im-plementation intention and goal pursuit, such that high SM’s experience a greater impact of imple-mentation intentions on the accomplishment of their intended goal pursuit than low SM’s. All three arguments are only mentioned here and will be elaborated on in greater detail later: First, II’s can help high SM’s to overcome the conflict between situational appropriate behaviour and other

(8)

inten-tions by choosing a route prior to encountering a critical situation. Second, high SM’s recognize and understand social cues more readily than low SM’s (Snyder, 1974) und thus identify a situation in which their intentions can be translated into actions more easily. And third, high SM’s explain their failure due to situational factors and not due to their own disposition like low SM’s (Spangenberg & Schrott, 2006). They experience therefore less threat to their self-concept and hence fewer need to stick to their intentions. The gap between intention and behaviour is bigger for high SM’s than for low SM’s and high SM’s face more obstacles on their route to goal pursuit than low SM’s thus II’s are expected to have a higher impact on high SM’s.

The results of this study seem to be relevant for understanding the concept of self-monitoring better and to draw meaningful generalizations about the relationship between implementation inten-tions and goal pursuit.

Academic contribution

The relationship between intentions and actual behaviour of self-monitors has been examined in great detail. The results suggested that high SM’s have a considerable weaker intention-behaviour correlation than low SM’s (Ajzen et al., 1982; Allen, Weeks & Moffitt, 2005; Jenkins, 1993). The role of implementation intentions on goal directed behaviour has also been investigated in the literature. In most studies forming implementation intentions highly increased the translation of in-tended behaviour into action (e.g. Sheeran, 2002; Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006a; Armitage, 2007; Luszczynska & Cieslak, 2009).

Moreover, related subjects to self-monitoring, such as self-concordance, have been discussed in lit-erature in combination with implementation intentions (Koestner, Lekes, Powers & Chicoine, 2002). Self-concordance is defined as “the extend to which a goal reflects personal interests and values versus something one feels compelled to do by external pressures” (Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). Persons high on self-concordance are thus comparable in their approach to goal-pur-suit to low self-monitors. This concept thus seems to provide a good basis for further extensions. Nevertheless, no research has been conducted so far on the moderating role of self-monitoring on the effectiveness of implementation intention interventions. This study tries to widen the current field of research by filling the gap and aim at building ground for further research possibilities.

Intended goal-directed behaviour of low and high self-monitors will be compared to the ex-tent it is translated into action. This shall be done by conducting an experiment. By means of goal pursuit, self-reported data on goal-directed behaviour, attitude towards the goal, and self-efficacy in goal pursuit will be collected.

(9)

The remainder of this study is organized as follows: First the concepts of implementation intention and self-monitoring are further introduced, then the underlying dimensions that lead to the hypothe-sis are discussed. An experiment will be conducted among students in order to test the hypothehypothe-sis. An analysis of the results is followed by theoretical implications, limitations and further research di-rections.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Implementation Intentions

One of the reasons why an intention is often not translated into action is the rivalry between differ-ent possible routes to goal attainmdiffer-ent (Gollwitzer, 1993) - differdiffer-ent situations, times and means in which a specific intention could be executed. Even different intentions may compete in a situation that is suited to carry out various goals. Especially, when time passes by between the forming of an intention and the actual behaviour, circumstances may have changed and the former intention might seem less paramount to be translated into action. Implementation intentions can facilitate the initia-tion of intended behaviour. When II’s are formed prior to critical situainitia-tions, conflicts between dif-ferent possible routes can be avoided since one goal intention and one specific route are prioritized (Gollwitzer, 1993).

Implementation intentions operate by connecting the goal-directed behaviour to an expected situ-ational context (Gollwitzer, 1993). A cue in the environment or a suitable context will be recog-nized easier and becomes more salient (Henderson, de Liver, & Gollwitzer, 2008). In addition, the cue will be more easily associated with the intended behaviour (Webb & Sheeran, 2007). Which means that once the cue is recognized, people remember their intention and what to do to accom-plish the goal. This enhances the likelihood that intended behaviour is in fact translated into action (McDaniel, Howard, & Butler, 2008), since the initiation is nearly automated (Gollwitzer, 1999) and removed from conscious and effortful control.

After initiating the intended behaviour, II’s additionally facilitate the maintenance of the be-haviour by ensuring that other distracting stimuli do not draw off the attention from the pursuit (Achtziger, Gollwitzer, & Sheeran, 2008) and that individuals maintain the intended behaviour (Gollwitzer & Schaal, 1998). Individuals are furthermore prevented from engaging in counterpro-ductive behaviour that works against their desired course of action (Henderson, Gollwitzer, & Oet-tingen, 2007).

(10)

Self-monitoring and Implementation Intentions

High SM’s have a lower correspondence between actual behaviour and former intentions than low SM’s (Ajzen et al., 1982). This can be explained by following aspects: High and low SM’s chose different sources of information to guide their actions (Snyder & Cantor, 1980) and have a different ability to adjust to external factors (Day, Unckless, Schleicher & Hiller, 2002). High self-monitors put high emphasis on social appropriateness (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). They are concerned to produce positive reactions in others; consequently their self-presentation is usually guided to meet the requirements of a given occasion and social expectations (Beer et al., 1997; Fennis & Stroebe, 2010). High SM’s are expected to be more easily distracted by situational changes and social ex-pectations and thus seem to experience greater problems in initiating and maintaining intended be-haviour. Consequently, they are expected to experience greater conflict between different intentions and routes of goal pursuit since they try to act appropriate to each situation and feel obligated to ad-apt their behaviour accordingly.

By contrast, low self-monitors don’t assimilate to their environment this way. They live up to their inner values and attitudes (Day et al. 2002) and are less likely to adjust to each new context (Greenberg & Baron, 2003). The intentions of low SM’s are strongly influenced by their inner atti-tudes and do not change that much over time and changed situations (Ajzen et al., 1982). This leads to a lower variability in actions and permits to predict subsequent behaviour more accurately. Low SM’s seem to experience less conflict between different routes of goal pursuit since they feel only obligated to their own disposition and do not change their attitudes when encountering a changed situation (Becherer & Richard, 1978; Snyder 1974).

Given the different characteristics of high and low SM’s, it seems reasonable to expect forming an implementation intention to have different implications for each level of self-monitoring.

II’s can help high SM’s to overcome the conflict between different routes and competing intentions and thus initiate the intended behaviour. II’s furthermore support high SM’s to maintain goal-di-rected behaviour and not to be distracted by other stimuli that impede their path to goal achieve-ment by moving the control away from external influences.

Low SM’s however do not experience the same urge. They are not as prone to changed contexts and social situations as high SM’s and do not face the same conflicts, since they are more coherent in their actions and pursue their goals irrespective to external influences, it can be expected that II’s have less impact on the initiation and maintenance of intended behaviour.

Recognizing and understanding situational and interpersonal cues is highly relevant for high SM’s in order to know how to act and present oneself (Snyder & Monson, 1975). Consequently

(11)

they seem to be constantly attentive to cues that potentially could guide their actions appropriate to the situation (Snyder, 1974). In contrast, since low self-monitors are driven by intrinsic values it can be expected that they pay less attention to cues in the environment to guide their behaviour.

Considering the fact that II’s are verbal if-then statements, which connect a target behaviour to a situational context, being attentive to cues is necessary in order to recognize a suitable situation. High SM’s thus have an advantage over low SM’s due to their disposition. They are expected to recognize situations more readily, in which they can initiate goal-directed behaviour.

Another tendency that hinders goal progress of high SM’s is the fact that they explain their deficiencies due to situational factors (Spangenberg & Schrott, 2006). They can better rationalize their actions in situations of failure than low SM’s (Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1982), experience less threat to their self-concept and less cognitive dissonance if they don’t act according to intentions (Spangenberg & Schrott 2006). High SM’s experience thus fewer urges to stick to an intended be-haviour. Low SM’s on the other hand attribute failure (Spangenberg & Schrott, 2006) and counter attitudinal behaviour (Snyder & Tanke, 1976) to their own disposition. They experience greater cognitive dissonance and violation to their self-concept, if they do not act according to their beliefs than high SM’s (DeBono & Edmonds, 1989). This leads naturally to a stronger intention-behaviour correlation (Ajzen et al., 1982).

The attitude towards failure of high SM’s often hinders goal achievement. However, this can be overcome through forming II’s. In contrast, low SM’s have a smaller gap between intention and be-haviour. Fewer urges can be expected to close that gap and forming an II is not going to affect their behaviour to the same extent, since they already feel obligated to follow their intentions.

All three arguments lead to the fundamental hypothesis that the impact of implementation intentions on goal-pursuit is moderated by self-monitoring, such that high self-monitors should show a higher impact of implementation intentions on goal-pursuit than low self-monitors.

However, there are also arguments supporting the opposite hypothesis. Low SM’s are similar to persons high on self-concordance (abbreviated as SC) and thus results from studies on SC seem to be interesting to be explored in greater detail. Both low SM’s and people high on SC pursue goals that reflect their “intrinsic interests and integrated values” (Koestner et al., 2002; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). People high on SC are defined as persons that follow goals that reflect their personal interest and do not act by responding to external pressures (Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). Since this ap-plies to low SM’s, too, extending the research on self-monitoring seems to be adequate. In a study conducted by Koestner et al. (2002), SC was combined with implementation intentions. Results suggest that combining both influenced goal progress synergistically, which means that people high

(12)

on SC made considerable more goal progress after forming II’s than people low on SC. These re-sults would contradict the assumption of this study. However, Koestner et al. (2002) compared the level of goal progress in absolute terms and did not take possible different base levels of people high on SC into account. The current study though expects natural differences between the base level of goal accomplishment between high and low SM’s. Results are going to be compared in relative terms, which might lead to different results for the interaction of low SM’s and II’s.

Results by Koestner et al. (2002), also suggest that pursuing SC goals is significantly more related to goal progress than pursuing non-self-concordant goals. Gollwitzer (1999) furthermore states that individuals invest more, if goals are personally endorsed and therefore record greater goal progress. Both lead to the conclusion that low SM’s put a lot of effort in translating intentions into action. This can again lead to the conclusion that low SM’s already put more effort in their intended actions than high SM’s and that forming II’s has less impact on their translation of intentions into action than on high SM’s.

It thus seems to be valid to expect greater impact of II on high SM’s than on low SM’s.

3 METHOD Participants and Design

A total of 261 German and Dutch University students were invited to improve their healthy eating behaviour by taking part in this study. The final sample consisted of 84 participants, 37 respondents were Dutch and 47 German (mean age= 25.23 years, SD =3.29years). 55 students were female and 29 male.

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis. The study employed a factorial 2 (implemen-tation intention: implemen(implemen-tation intention vs. control group) x 2 (self-monitoring: high vs. low) be-tween-participants design.

By means of goal pursuit, three types of data were collected at the baseline questionnaire and the follow-up study, 1 week later: Data on goal-directed behaviour, data on attitude towards goal and data on self-efficacy in goal pursuit. Participants were randomly assigned to each group, which led to 52 in the group that received experimental treatment and 32 participants in the control group.

Procedure

Participants were approached via social networks, such as Facebook, hyves.nl, and the University mailing list and invited to improve their healthy eating behaviour. Two different links – one with the experimental treatment and one with the control condition - were randomly sent to the partici-pants. When participants clicked on the link, they were informed that the study contained two parts:

(13)

both interventions included an introduction and a questionnaire. After responding to the first ques-tionnaire, the follow-up study would be sent to them within the next seven days.

All questionnaires were self-administered and withdrawing from the study was possible at any time.

Baseline questionnaire. Each participant was asked to answer questions about his/her fruit

intake in the last seven days, his/her attitude towards eating more fruits, the level of self-efficacy in goal pursuit and his/her mood – see Appendix A for full questionnaire. The measures are described in more detail in the following paragraph. Furthermore a few dummy questions were included to disguise the purpose of the study. Respondents that were assigned to the experimental condition were instructed to form an implementation intention. The questionnaire of the control group was identical besides this instruction. The subsequent questions assessed the level of self-monitoring of each participant. Respondents were furthermore asked to create a code to match the two studies us-ing the first two letters of their mothers’ first name and the day of their birthday.

Finally, respondents had to state their age, gender, profession, Nationality and email-address in or-der to be contacted for the follow-up study and to receive individual results.

Follow-up study. One week later, respondents were contacted via email. First, they were

re-minded of the number of portions they had consumed one week earlier. Then the questionnaire was almost identical to the first one examining the fruit intake of the past seven days, the attitude to-wards the goal, the level of self-efficacy in goal pursuit and respondents’ mood. Whereas demo-graphic and dummy questions were left out this time, respondents were again asked create the code to match answers - see Appendix B for follow-up questionnaire

Debriefing. Respondents were offered the chance of being debriefed. After a maximum of

two months, each interested respondent received a short explanation of the study, his/her results on self-monitoring and implications for forming implementation intentions applied to healthy eating behaviour.

Independent variables

Implementation intentions. The variable was manipulated by instructing participants to

form an implementation intention. The format was taken from Armitage’s (2007) study on fruit consumption; he based the instructions on the recommendations of Gollwitzer (1993). This current study included a few adaptations, such that two waves of data collection were spread over only one week. The term “pieces of fruits” was exchanged with “portions of fruits”, which was defined as the size of one’s fist as recommended by the European health authority. This facilitated that participants used the same measure at both interventions. Participants were furthermore asked to write down the implementation intention on an additional piece of paper to ensure they remember the if-condition

(14)

for each particular day. Participants that received experimental treatment were given following writ-ten instruction:

“You are more likely to eat an extra piece of fruit each day if you decide when and where you will do so. Please write in the space below when and where you will eat an extra piece of fruit each day in the next week” (Armitage, 2007). Please also take the time to write down your plan for each day on an extra piece of paper.

The control group did not receive this instruction but was merely invited to keep eating fruits.

Intention. Participants were further asked questions about their overall intention to eat more

fruits. This was done to check their intrinsic willingness, which is a necessary prerequisite for im-plementation intentions (Ridder, De Wit & Adriaanse, 2009) and to rule out intention as confound-ing variable. No significant differences were expected at both times of intervention and between groups. The three item 7-point scale that measured behavioural intention was taken from Armitage (2007). “I intend to eat an extra piece of fruit each day in the next week definitely do not–definitely do’, ‘I want to eat an extra piece of fruit each day in the next week definitely do not-definitely do’ and ‘How likely is it that you will eat an extra piece of fruit each day in the next week? very un-likely–very likely.” Cronbach’s α for the intention scale was α =.73, indicating good internal re-liability.

Self-monitoring. The variable self-monitoring was not manipulated but participants were

classified as either low or high self-monitors according to the 18-item self-monitoring scale by Gangestad & Snyder (1986). This was done by calculating the median score - which proved to be 9 - and dichotomizing the distribution at that point. 45 participants who scored between 0 and 8 were classified as low self-monitors and 39 participants who scored between 10 and 18 were classified as high self-monitors, participants scoring exactly 9 were randomly assigned over both groups. Cron-bach’s α for the self-monitoring scale was α =.64, indicating good internal reliability.

Mood. To rule out mood as confounding variable that provides alternative explanations of

ex-perimental results and to ensure that the variable does not affect the dependant variables, the effects of mood were statistically controlled by entering the variable as covariate.

Mood was measures with the Mood Short Form scale by Peterson and Sauber (1983). Four items, such as ‘As I answer these questions I feel cheerful. - strongly disagree to strongly agree’, assessed the mood of participants. Cronbach’s α showed a good internal reliability, α =.70.

Dependent variables

By means of goal pursuit, data on goal-directed behaviour, self-efficacy in goal pursuit and attitude towards goal was collected.

(15)

Goal-directed Behaviour. As target behaviour the amount of fruit intake was assessed. Fruit

consumption has been proven effective in determining the effects of implementation intentions (Armitage, 2007; Chapman, Armitage & Norman, 2009; De Nooijer, De Vet & De Vries, 2006; Gratton, Povey & Clark-Carter, 2007; Jackson, Lawton, Knapp, Raynor, Conner, Lower et al., 2005; Kellar & Abraham, 2005; Luszczynska & Cieslak, 2009; Luszczynska & Haynes, 2009; Luszczynska, Sobczyk, Abraham, 2007; Reuter, Ziegelmann, Wiedemann &Lippke, 2008; Van Osch, Beenackers, Reubsaet, Lechner, Candel & De Vries, 2009) and thus seems to be an adequate measurement.

Goal-directed behaviour in terms of fruit consumption was measured with one item at baseline con-sistent with Armitage (2007): “How many portions of fruit did you eat in the last week?”. In the fol-low-up, respondents were additionally asked, “On how many days (of the last 7) did you eat an ex-tra portion of fruit?”.

Attitude towards goal. The attitudes towards eating one extra portion of fruit a day were

measured as the mean of a 5 item 7-point semantic differential scale developed by Gratton et al. (2007): “For me to eat an extra portion of fruit every day would be: very harmful–very beneficial, very unpleasant–very pleasant, very bad–very good, very worthless–very valuable, very unenjoy-able–very enjoyable”. The attitude scale possessed a good internal reliability as the Cronbach’s α showed, α =.65.

Self-efficacy in goal pursuit. Luszczynska & Cieslak (2009) define perceived self-efficacy

as “an individual’s belief in his or her capability to exercise control over challenging environmental demands and his or her own functioning”. Since implementation intentions increase the proportion of intentions that are translated into action, it can be assumed that the perceived self-efficacy of in-dividuals in maintaining behaviour rises when forming an implementation intention. Self-efficacy in goal pursuit was measured with a 3 items 4-points scale. The scale was an adapted version of the scale developed by Luszczynska & Cieslak (2009) on healthy nutrition: “I am able to maintain a healthy diet and eat at least 1 extra portion of fruits a day even if: ‘I would have to invest some ef-forts to change my nutrition habits’, ‘I would feel under pressure or stressed’, ‘I would find it diffi-cult to compose attractive, healthy meals’ definitely not – exactly true. Cronbach’s α indicated a good internal reliability, α = .68.

(16)

4 RESULTS

By means of goal-pursuit, goal-directed behaviour, attitude towards goal, intention to pursue goal and self-efficacy in goal-pursuit were assessed. All variables were measured in relative terms, such that the specified values at T0 were subtracted from the values at T1.

Randomization Check

To verify the success of the randomization procedure, chi-square and ANOVA were used and showed no significant gender, c2(1)=.85, p=.36, or age differences, F(1,82)=.88, p=.35,

η

p2=.011,

between the experimental and the control group, thus randomization was successful.

Goal-directed Behaviour

First, a 2 (implementation intention: with vs. without) x 2 (self-monitoring: high vs. low) ANOVA was executed to examine how the level of self-monitoring and the formation of an implementation intention influenced the target behaviour, namely the fruit intake. The results revealed a main effect of implementation intention (F(1,78)=10.5, p=.002, ηp2=.119), which indicates that forming an

im-plementation intention led to a relative larger fruit intake (M=2.35 ,SD=2.47) than not forming one (M=1.00, SD=1.93). The results furthermore showed a main effect of self-monitoring (F(1,78)=10.12, p=.002, ηp2=.115), meaning that high self-monitors consumed a relatively larger

amount of fruits (M=2.79, SD=2.19) than low self-monitors (M=1.00, SD=2.20) - see Table 1 for cell means and standard deviations. A significant interaction effect between implementation inten-tion and self-monitoring qualified this main effect (F(1,78) = 6.32, p=.014, ηp2=.075).

Additionally, a simple main effect analysis was conducted to verify that the increase in fruit intake when forming an implementation intention was only significant for high SM’s (F(1,80)=13.56,

p=.000, ηp2=.14). In contrast, implementation intentions failed to affect behaviour of low SM’s

(F(1,80)=.36, p=.550, ηp2=.004). Thus forming an implementation intention had an impact on the

goal-directed behaviour of high SM but not on the goal-directed behaviour of low SM. Hence, the results were in line with the proposed hypothesis. Changes in mood and age did not explain the findings. Both, mood (F(1,78)=.48, p=.49) and age (F(1,78)=1.25; p=.27) were included as covari-ates and had no confounding effect.

(17)

Table 1

Cell Means and standard deviations as a function of Behaviour.

Attitude towards goal pursuit

An ANOVA on the influence of self-monitoring and implementation intentions on attitude towards goal pursuit showed a main effect of self-monitoring (F(1,78)=3.62, ηp2=.044) that is marginally

significant at p=.061, whereas the main effect of implementation-intention (F(1,78)=1.94, p=.168,

ηp2=.024) as well as the interaction effect (F(1,78)=.242, p=.624, ηp2=.003) failed to reach

signifi-cance. The results indicated that high SM’s (M=.32, SD=.56) had a smaller increase in attitude to-wards fruit intake than low SM’s (M=.67, SD=.95). However, forming implementation intentions did not additionally influence this effect. Forming an implementation intention (M=.60, SD=.90) did not produce a significant difference in attitude towards fruit consumption compared to the control condition (M=.36, SD=.61).

Self-efficacy in goal-pursuit

An ANOVA conducted to examine the influence of self-monitoring and implementation intentions on self-efficacy in goal pursuit yielded a marginally main effect of implementation-intention at

p=.07 (F(1,78)=3.39,

η

p2=.042) and self-monitoring at p=.06 (F(1,78)=3.61, ηp2=.044). The

inter-action effect of implementation intention and self-monitoring however yielded no significant results (F(1,78)=.1, p=.76, ηp2=.001).

Thus, respondents forming an implementation intention showed a higher increase in self-efficacy in goal-pursuit (M=.05, SD=.75), than respondents in the control condition (M=-.21, SD=.75). Addi-tionally, high SM (M=.14, SD=.86) had a higher increase in self-efficacy in goal-pursuit than low SM (M=-.21, SD=.62). However, both main effects were independent from each other and no inter-action was measurable.

Intention to pursue goal

An ANOVA did not produce any significant effects for implementation intentions (F(1,80)=.051,

p=.82,

η

p2=.001), self-monitoring (F(1,80)=1.34, p=.25, ηp2=.016) and the interaction effect of

im-High SM Low SM

N M SD N M SD

With Implementation Intention 24 3.75 2.05 28 1.14 2.16

(18)

plementation intention and self-monitoring (F(1,80)=.024, p=.88,

η

p2=.000). As expected, high

(M=.19, SD=1.16) as well as low SM’s (M=.47, SD=.89) had similar strong intentions to eat an ex-tra portion of fruit a day. Participants had no different intention to pursue the goal in the imple-mentation intention condition (M=.36, SD=1.00) and the control group (M=.30, SD=1.08). This means that intention did not confound with the treatment and that randomization was successful. In sum, these results show that the impact of implementation intentions on goal-directed behaviour was more pronounced under the condition of high self-monitoring than its impact under the condi-tion of low self-monitoring, such that high SM’s consumed in comparison significantly more fruits after forming an II than low SM’s. However, neither the attitude towards goal-pursuit nor the self-efficacy in goal-pursuit were affected by the interaction of self-monitoring and implementation in-tention.

5 DISCUSSION

Previous research showed that an implementation intention intervention could increase fruit intake (e.g. Chapman et al., 2009; De Nooijer et al., 2006; Luszczynska et al., 2007). The findings of this study provided support for earlier research and additionally indicated a moderating effect of self-monitoring on the implementation-intentions-behaviour relationship. In line with the hypothesis, the results indicated that high SM that formed an II had a significantly larger increase in fruit con-sumption than low SM that formed an II. Changes in mood at both times of intervention did not ex-plain the findings. No significant differences were furthermore found between the experimental and the control group for age and gender.

Thus, this study adds to past research by providing support for the hypothesis that implementa-tion intenimplementa-tions do not affect all people equally but this relaimplementa-tionship seems in fact to be moderated by self-monitoring.

While a relative increase in goal-directed behaviour was significantly different for high and low SM’s after forming an implementation intention, results on attitude towards goal and self-efficacy in goal-pursuit showed no significant interaction effects.

Theoretical implications

The difference in goal-directed behaviour of high and low SM’s is in line with the reasoning of this study. The II provided both groups with the opportunity to chose a time and place when to eat an extra piece of fruit each day. This was expected to especially help high SM to translate their inten-tions into action, since they recognize cues and situainten-tions when to implement behaviour more easily

(19)

than low SM’s (Snyder, 1974). High SM are moreover less consistent in their actions than low SM’s (Ajzen, 1982) thus II aid them in initiating and maintaining intended behaviour more readily; low SM instead have naturally a stronger intention-behaviour correlation and thus experience a smaller impact of II. Thus, the findings about goal-directed behaviour support the hypothesis, that forming an II increases the level of goal-directed behaviour for high SM significantly more than for low SM.

High and low SM had a similar strong intention to eat an extra portion of fruit each day at the first intervention and both groups did not have a higher intention after they formed an imple-mentation intention. It seems plausible to explain this consistency by the characteristics of both groups. It can be assumed that high SM do not require a change intention in order to change their behaviour since not the intrinsic values but the situation and social appropriateness guide their ac-tions (Snyder, 1974). It might be plausible that knowing the researcher and stating when and where an extra portion of fruit will be consumed evoked social pressure for high SM, which led to transla-tion into actransla-tion. This does however not guarantee a long-term change in behaviour, since high SM adjust their behaviour easily and rapidly to changed circumstances (Ajzen et al., 1982). Low SM had as well no enhanced intention to eat more fruits but also did not change their fruit intake. This behaviour is as well in line with past research. Low SM act according to their intrinsic values and believes and don’t adjust to external situation readily (Snyder, 1974). Thus, the results on intention to pursue the goal don’t seem to contradict the hypothesis but rather support past research.

Differences in attitude towards goal were marginally significant, such that high SM’s had a smaller increase in attitude towards fruit intake than low SM’s. However, - controversy to the hy-pothesis - no effects of implementation intentions or the interaction could be found. It seems to be reasonable that high SM do not need a positive increase in attitude towards goal in order to pursue the goal as well, since not the attitude about the goal but the social appropriateness of carrying out the goal guides their action (Zanna et al., 1980). The increase in attitude of low SM seems to be more difficult to explain. Taking part in the study and processing information about fruit consump-tion over a timeframe of one week, might have caused low SM to evaluate on fruit consumpconsump-tion and to develop a more positive attitude towards such behaviour. A behavioural change could not be measured, since low SM infer their attitudes from past behaviour (Zanna et al., 1980) and a change in attitude asks for a change in values and believes, too. A behavioural change might therefore be measurable after a longer period of time. However, that is just a speculation and more research is necessary on the effects of II on the attitude of low SM.

The hypothesis that perceived self-efficacy in goal-pursuit rises when forming an implemen-tation intention could not be supported for neither high nor low SM. Reason for that line of

(20)

argu-mentation was the assumption that the more intentions are translated into action the more confident an individual is about his/her own functioning (Luszczynska & Cieslak, 2009) and thus develops more self-efficacy. Since no differences in intention could be found in this study, the assumption does not need to be neglected.

An alternative explanation could be that eating an extra piece of fruit each day was extrinsically motivated. Even though all four groups scored above the midpoint on the intention scale, this does not ensure that individuals would have eaten the same amount of fruit without taking part in the study. Thus, it seems possible that no real intentions were translated into actions and thus individu-als did not perceive as if they had achieved something. Extending the present study by examining how intrinsic intentions affect the level of self-efficacy after forming an II seems to be worthwhile.

Social relevance

This present study focuses on fruit intake as target behaviour. It seems meaningful to evaluate the generizability of the findings to other target behaviour. It seems reasonable that comparable results can presumably be expected for high and low SM when examining an eating behaviour that requires similar effort and satisfies similar needs as fruits, such as healthy nutrition or weight loss. Never-theless, while fruit intake is socially and individually accepted as being good and healthy, other tar-get behaviour might lead to more diverse reactions and thus especially high SM might suffer from increased cognitive dissonance. Low SM’s however are not expected to react differently to socially less accepted target behaviour since they only feel obligated to their inner values and not to the so-cial context. Thus, a study on such behaviour might bring about different results. Generalizing from the present findings, it might be expected that smaller mean differences between high and low SM can be observed.

Potential Limitations and further research directions

Although the current research adds to the literature on II and SM in important aspects, some poten-tial limitations have to be mentioned.

First, it is not certain how representative the results are. Due to a high dropout rate, the group that received experimental treatment was disproportionally larger than the control group. Reasons for that are unknown to the researcher. A larger and broader sample would enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Students are often used as target group for healthy eating interventions (e.g. Armitage, 2007), how-ever it seems as if especially younger people are aware and curious about healthy nutrition. Addi-tional to a stronger emphasis on body shapes in today’s society; young adults are also often raised

(21)

with a very attentive attitude towards food. The same accounts for the citizens of Western European countries, such as the German and Dutch culture as used in this study. This intervention provides a good starting point but for more representative results the study should be repeated over different cultures and age groups.

Second, the study stretched over 1 week, which was adapted from Armitage (2007) and seemed to be an appropriate timeframe for respondents to remember their fruit intake. Replicating the study over a longer period of time might however lead to additional interesting findings since behavioural change can only be assured when a behaviour is maintained (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983) or repeated frequently in stable contexts (Armitage, 2005).

Third, the aspects of goal pursuit were analyzed on base of self-reported data. The scales were adopted from former research and had been proven effective in the past. Nevertheless, some respondents commented that the questions were difficult to understand and to answer. This is a common problem in research, since often self-reported and objective behaviour diverge (Armitage, 2005) and thus measures are not truly authentic.

Conclusion

The present research provides support for the hypothesis that the impact of implementation inten-tions on goal-pursuit is moderated by self-monitoring, such that high SM that form an II have a sig-nificantly larger increase in goal-directed behaviour than low SM that form an II.

Further work should focus on changes in attitude of low SM in a long-term study with a larger sam-ple and examining how intrinsically motivated intentions affect the level of self-efficacy after form-ing an II.

(22)

REFERENCES

Achtziger, A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2008), “Implementation intentions and shielding goal striving from unwanted thoughts and feelings”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 381-393.

Ajzen, I., Timko, C., and White, J. B. (1982), “Self-Monitoring and the Attitude-Behavior Rela-tion”, Journal or Personality and Social Psychology, 42(3), 426-435.

Allen, D. G.; Weeks, K. P.; Moffitt, K. R. (2005), “Turnover Intentions and Voluntary Turnover: The Moderating Roles of Self-Monitoring, Locus of Control, Proactive Personality, and Risk Aver-sion”, Journal of applied psychology, 90(5), 980.

Armitage, C. J. (2005), “Can the theory of planned behavior predict the maintenance of physical ac-tivity?”, Health Psychology, 24, 235–245.

Armitage, C. J. (2007), “Effects of an implementation intention-based intervention on fruit con-sumption”, Psychology and Health, 22(8), 917–928.

Becherer, R. C., Richard, L. M. (1978), “Self-Monitoring as a Moderating Variable in Consumer Behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 159-162.

Beer, M. J., Lassiter, G. D., Flannery, B. C. (1997), “Individual Differences in Person Memory: Self-Monitoring and the Recall of Consistent and Inconsistent Behavior”, Journal of Social

Behav-ior and Personality, 12(3), 811-820.

Caldwell, D. F., O'Reilly, C. A. (1982), “Responses to failure: The effects of choice and responsibi-lity on impression management“, Academy of Management Journal, 25, 121-136.

Chapman, J., Armitage, C. J., & Norman, P. (2009), “Comparing implementation intention inter-ventions in relation to young adults’ intake of fruit and vegetables”, Psychology and Health, 24, 317–332.

Day, D. V., Unckless, A. L., Schleicher, D. J., Hiller, N. J. (2002), “Self-Monitoring Personality at Work: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Construct Validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 390–401.

DeBono, K. G. & Edmonds, A. E. (1989), “Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Monitoring: A Matter of Context?” Motivation and Emotion, 13, 259–70.

De Nooijer, J., De Vet, E., Brug, J., & De Vries, N. K. (2006), “Do implementation intentions help to turn good intentions into higher fruit intakes?”, Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, 38, 25–29.

Fennis, B. M. & Stroebe, W. (2010), “The Psychology of Advertising”, Psychology Press.

Fennis, B. M., Adriaanse, M. A., Stroebe, W. & Pol, B. (2011), “Bridging the intention-behavior gap: Inducing implementation intentions through persuasive appeals”, Journal of Consumer

(23)

Gangestad, S. W., Snyder, M. (2000), “Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal”, Psychological

Bulletin, 126, 530–555.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993), “Goal achievement: The role of intentions”, European Review of Social

Psychology, 4, 141-185.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Schaal, B. (1998), “Metacognition in action: The importance of implementa-tion intenimplementa-tions”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 124-136.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American

Psy-chologist, 54, 493–503.

Gollwitzer, P.M., Sheeran, P. (2006), “Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Effects and Processes”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. Gratton, L., Povey, R. & Clark-Carter, D. (2007), “Promoting children’s fruit and vegetable con-sumption: Interventions using the Theory of Planned Behaviour as a framework”, British Journal of

Health Psychology, 12, 639–650.

Greenberg, J., Baron, R. A. (2003), “Behaviour in Organzations – Understanding and Managing

the Human Side of Work”, Eigth edition, Pearson Education, 90-93.

Henderson, M. D., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007), “Implementation intentions and dis-engagement from a failing course of action”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 81-102. Henderson, M., D., de Liver, Y., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008), “The effects of an implemental mind-set on attitude strength”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 396-411.

Jackson, C., Lawton, R., Knapp, P., Raynor, D. K., Conner, M., Lower, C., et al. (2005), “Beyond intention. Do specific plans increase health behaviours in patients in primary care? A study of fruit and vegetable consumption”, Social Science and Medicine, 60, 2383–2391.

Jenkins, M. J. (1993), “Self-monitoring and turnover: The impact of personality on intent to leave”,

Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14, 83-91.

Kellar, I., & Abraham, C. (2005), “Randomized controlled trial of a brief research-based interven-tion promoting fruit and vegetable consumpinterven-tion”, British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 543– 558.

Knäuper, B., Roseman, M., Johnson, P. J., Krantz, L. H. (2009), “Using Mental Imagery to Enhance the Effectiveness of Implementation Intentions”, Current Psychology, 28(3), 181-186.

Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., Chicoine, E. (2002), “Attaining Personal Goals: Self-Con-cordance Plus Implementation Intentions Equals Success”, Journal of Personality and Social

Psy-chology, 83(1), 231–244.

Luszczynska, A., & Cieslak, R. (2009), “Mediated effects of social support for healthy nutrition. Fruit and vegetable intake across 8 months after myocardial infarction”,

(24)

Luszczynska, A., & Haynes, C. (2009), “Changing nutrition physical activity, and body weight among student nurses and midwives effects of a planning intervention and self-efficacy beliefs”,

Journal of Healthy Psychology, 8, 1075–1084.

Luszczynska, A., Sobczyk, A., & Abraham, C. (2007), “Planning to lose weight. Random- ized controlled trial of an implementation intention prompt to enhance weight reduction among over-weight and obese women”, Health Psychology, 4, 507–512.

McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Butler, K. M. (2008), “Implementation intentions facilitate prospective memory under high attention demands”, Memory & Cognition, 36, 716-724.

Peterson, R. A., Sauber, M. (1983), “ A mood Scale for Survey Research”, in American Marketing Association Educator’s Proceedings, eds. Patrick Murphy et al., Chicago: American Marketing As-sociation, 409-14.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983), “Stages and processes of self-change in smoking: Toward an integrative model of change”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390– 395.

Reuter, T., Ziegelmann, J., Wiedemann, A. & Lippke, S. (2008), “Dietary planning as a mediator of the intention behaviour relation. An experimental causal chain design”, Applied

Psychology, 57, 194–207.

Ridder, D. D., De Wit, J., & Adriaanse, M. A. (2009), “Making plans for healthy diet: The role of motivation and action orientation”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 622-630.

Sheeran, P. (2002), “Intention-behaviour relations: a conceptual and empirical review”, European

Review of Social Psychology, 12, 1-36.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998), “Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons as predictors of effort and attainment”, Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 24, 546–557.

Sheldon, K. M., Houser-Marko, L. (2001), “Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 152–165).

Snyder, M. (1974), “Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 30, 526–37.

Snyder, M., & Monson, T. C. (1975), “Persons, situations, and the control of social behavior”,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 637-644.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D. (1976), “Behavior and attitude: Some people are more consistent than others”, Journal of Personality, 44.

Snyder, M., Cantor, N. (1980), “Thinking About Ourselves and Others: Self-Monitoring and Social Knowledge”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 222-234.

(25)

Snyder, M., Gangestad, S. (1986), “On the Nature of Self-Monitoring: Matters of Assessment, Mat-ters of Validity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125-39.

Spangenberg, E. R., Sprott, D. E. (2006), “Self-Monitoring and Susceptibility to the Influence of Self-Prophecy”, Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 550-556.

Van Osch, L., Beenackers, M., Reubsaet, A., Lechner, L., Candel, M., & De Vries, H. (2009), “Ac-tion planning as predictor of health protective and health risk behavior. An investiga“Ac-tion of fruit and snack consumption”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, art no 69.

Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2007), “How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component processes”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 295-302.

Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M., Fazio, R. H. (1980), Attitude-Behavior Consistency: An Individual Dif-ference Perspective, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(3), 432-440.

(26)

APPENDIX A Baseline questionnaire

My name is Stella Vanek. I am a Master student at University of Groningen. Please take part in this study to support my Master thesis.

This study includes two short interventions, in which your habits and personality are assessed. If you wish, I will send your individual feedback to you at the end of both studies. Therefore and to contact you for the second part of the study, I ask you to provide your email-address at the end of the study. It will be held 100% confidential and not passed over to third persons.

Answering this questionnaire will take approximately 10 minutes. Thank you very much in advance.

Introduction:

The things we eat have a big influence on our health, energy level, immune system and even our thoughts and emotions. Our hair, skin and body look better if we take care of what we eat.

Eating fruits is important for a healthy nutrition it provides the human body with long-term energy and many important nutrients. At least 1 portion of fruits is recommended each day by the European health authority.

Please try to eat a bit healthier in the future.

Please answer following questions:

How would you describe your level of fitness: Very bad – very good

7-point scale

How satisfied are you with your nutrition (=Ernährung)? Very much – not at all

7-point scale

How would you describe your body shape? Very skinny – very big

(27)

Fruit intake last 7 days:

How many portions of fruit did you eat in the last 7 days? One portion is about as big as your fist. This can be for example an apple, a banana, or a small bowl of frozen mango pieces,…

Self-efficacy in goal pursuit:

I am able to maintain a healthy diet and eat at least 1 extra portion of fruit every day even if: 1. ‘I would have to invest some efforts to change my nutrition habits’

2. ‘I would feel under pressure or stressed’

3. ‘I would find it difficult to compose attractive, healthy meals’

4. ‘I would have to invest additional effort to convince others that I really want to stick to a healthy diet’

5. ‘I would crave for unhealthy snacks’ 4 points scale: 1 (definitely not) – 4 (exactly true)

Attitude towards Goal:

For me to eat 1 extra portion of fruit every day would be: Very harmful–very beneficial

Very unpleasant–very pleasant Very bad–very good

Very worthless–very valuable Very unenjoyable–very enjoyable 7-point scale

Mood:

1. Currently, I am in a good mood.

2. As I answer these questions I feel cheerful.

3. For some reason I am not very comfortable right now. 4. At this moment I feel edgy or irritable.

(28)

Intention:

1. I intend to eat an extra portion of fruit each day in the next week definitely do not–definitely do

2. I want to eat an extra portion of fruit each day in the next week definitely do not-definitely do

3. How likely is it that you will eat an extra portion of fruit each day in the next week? very unlikely–very likely

7-point bipolar (-3 to +3) scales

a) Implementation Intention condition:

You are more likely to eat an extra piece of fruit each day if you decide when and where you will do so. Please write in the space below when and where you will eat an extra piece of fruit each day in the next week. Please also take the time to write down your plan for each day on an extra piece of paper.

b) Control condition:

Please keep eating fruits!

Self-monitoring:

In the following list, if a statement is true or mostly true as it applies to you, mark the T. If a state-ment is false or not usually true as it applies to you, mark the F.

T F 1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.

T F 2. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like. T F 3. I only argue for ideas which I already believe.

T F 4. I can make impromptu speeches on topics about which I have almost no information. T F 5. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others.

T F 6. I would probably make a good actor.

T F 7. In a group of people, I am rarely the center of attention.

T F 8. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons. T F 9. I am not particularly good at making other people like me.

(29)

T F 11. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone or to win their favor.

T F 12. I have considered being an entertainer.

T F 13. I have never been good at games such as charades and improvisational acting. T F 14. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations. T F 15. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going.

T F 16. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not come across quite as well as I should. T F 17. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for the right end). T F 18. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them.

Please state your:

Age, Gender, Profession, Nationality

Please create following code:

First 2 letters of your mothers first name+ day of your birthday, Example: Mariana, April, 21st

1984 = Ma21

Do you want to receive personal feedback?

E-mail-address (To contact you for the second and last part of the study and to send you your own

individual feedback at the end of both studies)

Thank you very much for sharing your answers with me. I will contact you within the next 7 days via the email-address you provided for the last questionnaire.

(30)

APPENDIX B Follow-up questionnaire

Thank you for taking the time to answer this short questionnaire. Answering it will take approxi-mately 5 minutes.

Please state your email-address: Please create again following code:

First 2 letters of your mothers first name+ day of your birthday, Example: Mariana, April, 21st 1984 = Ma21

Last week you stated that you ate x portions of fruits. How many fruits did you eat during the last 7 days:

How many portions of fruits did you eat in the last week?

On how many days (of the last 7) did you eat an extra portion of fruits?