Mindset Theory of Action Phases and If-Then Planning

In this chapter, we introduce Mindset theory of Action Phases (MAP) and the self-regulation strategy of implementation intentions. MAP proposes four successive distinct phases through which one traverses during goal pursuit. During each phase, the goal-st

  • PDF / 405,396 Bytes
  • 15 Pages / 504.567 x 720 pts Page_size
  • 110 Downloads / 173 Views

DOWNLOAD

REPORT


Mindset Theory of Action Phases and If-Then Planning Lucas Keller, Maik Bieleke, and Peter M. Gollwitzer

Contents Introduction 

 23

MAP  Mindsets  Applications and Developments 

 24  26  26

Implementation Intentions  Cognitive Processes and Moderators  Application 

 27  29  31

Example Study: Bridging the IntentionBehavior Gap: Inducing Implementation Intentions Through Persuasive Appeals (Fennis, Adriaanse, Stroebe, & Pol, 2011) 

 32

Recommended Reading 

 33

Guiding Answers to Questions in the Chapter 

 34

References 

 34

L. Keller (*) · M. Bieleke University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany e-mail: [email protected] P. M. Gollwitzer University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany New York University, New York City, NY, USA

Introduction When the then Roman general Julius Caesar made the decision to cross the Rubicon with his army, he knew that this marked a point of no return. He supposedly uttered that “the die has been cast” as he could foresee the dramatic consequences – treason and the beginning of a civil war. However, when Heckhausen and Gollwitzer (1987) described the transition from a motivational (why does an individual do X?) to a volitional state (how does an individual do X?) in goal pursuit, they chose to refer to it as crossing the Rubicon nonetheless. Why did they choose these drastic words and how does making a decision compare to the metaphorical point of no return? In the research leading up to the formulation and the various extensions of Mindset theory of Action Phases (MAP; Gollwitzer, 1990, 2012; Gollwitzer & Keller, 2016; cf. Bernecker & Job, Chap. 12), researchers observed differences in thought content and focus before and after a decision. More specifically, one group of individuals deliberated about which of their many desires to turn into a binding goal or the pros and cons of one particular decision (e.g., whether or not they should choose psychology as their major). Another group of individuals already made the decision in favor of one goal and now planned the necessary steps to go forward (e.g., choosing the

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 K. Sassenberg, M. L. W. Vliek (eds.), Social Psychology in Action, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_2

23

L. Keller et al.

24

important and necessary courses, ordering expensive textbooks online). Whether the decision in favor of one goal had been made subsequently determined whether individuals partook in a relatively open-minded deliberation of pros and cons of the goal in question or a relatively closedminded listing of pros in favor of the chosen goal (e.g., Nenkov & Gollwitzer, 2012; Taylor & Gollwitzer, 1995). From its early days, MAP has been a theory of successful goal pursuit. It marks important transitions, predicts cognitive shifts of goal-­striving individuals, and explains when individuals commit to a goal. However, not all chosen goals are attained. In a meta-analysis of meta-analyses assessing this truism, Sheeran (2002) found a positive correlation between intentions and b