Abstract

This study examined whether matching implementation intentions to people's regulatory orientation affects the effectiveness of changing unhealthy snacking habits. Participants' regulatory orientation was either measured (as a chronic trait) or manipulated (as a situational state), and participants were randomly assigned to implementation intention conditions to eat more healthy snacks or avoid eating unhealthy ones. A self-reported online food diary of healthy and unhealthy snacks over a 2-day period. Participants with weak unhealthy snacking habits consumed more healthy snacks when forming any type of implementation intentions (regardless of match or mismatch with their regulatory orientation), while participants with strong unhealthy snacking habits consumed more healthy snacks only when forming implementation intentions that matched their regulatory orientations. RESULTS suggest that implementation intentions that match regulatory orientation heighten motivation intensity and put snacking under intentional control for people with strong unhealthy snacking habits.

Highlights

  • This study investigated the hypothesis that forming implementation intentions which match one’s regulatory orientation will change strong unhealthy snacking habits

  • We replicated the beneficial effect of implementation intentions alone on people with weak unhealthy snacking habits

  • We reveal a differential effectiveness of forming implementation intentions to snack more healthily between participants with strong versus weak unhealthy snacking habits

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Based on the discussions above, we expect that people with strong versus weak unhealthy snacking habits will gain differential effectiveness in changing habits using different types of implementations intentions because of the heightened motivational intensity brought about through regulatory fit. For participants with strong unhealthy snacking habits, making implementation intentions that did not fit their regulatory orientation or not making any implementation intentions at all resulted in similar snacking behavior, M = 3.10, SD = 1.38 versus M = 2.85, SD = 1.37, F(1, 538) = 1.13, p = .29, η2 < .01.

Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.