Implementation intentions are if-then plans that link anticipated situations to specific behaviors: “When I encounter situation z, I will do behavior y.” Gollwitzer’s research distinguishes these from goal intentions (“I intend to achieve x”).
A museum meeting chair could plan: “When our visitor-feedback meeting ends, I’ll record the agreed action and its owner before starting my next task.” The meeting’s end becomes a cue to begin the follow-through, giving a team trying to close an action gap a specific place to start.
The proposed mechanism resembles habit formation, but the cue and response are linked through an advance commitment rather than repeated practice. Recognizing the cue can make starting easier and reduce the need for a fresh decision in the moment. It does not guarantee action or eliminate the need for commitment and an opportunity to act.
Research findings: Gollwitzer and Brandstätter’s 1997 paper reports three studies. In correlational Study 1, 62% of difficult goals accompanied by implementation intentions were completed, versus 22% without them. In experimental Study 2, among 36 identifiable returned reports, 12 of 17 planners (71%) wrote within two days after Christmas Eve, versus 6 of 19 controls (32%). Of those 12 planners, 10 (83%) wrote on their intended day. Planning did not significantly increase the number of reports returned overall. In Study 3’s laboratory task, participants with plans spoke up closer to preselected opportunities (an average gap of 4.8 seconds versus 6.0 seconds).
Study 1 found no significant benefit for easy goals in that sample; it does not establish that implementation intentions help only with difficult goals. For the meeting example, the useful discipline is choosing a recognizable cue and an action that can actually follow it. “When appropriate” leaves both decisions open.
Source: Peter M. Gollwitzer and Veronika Brandstätter, Implementation Intentions and Effective Goal Pursuit (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997), pp. 189–192, 195.