Abstract

ObjectiveResearch investigating cognitive moderators of the intention–behaviour relationship and psychological consequences of failure to enact intentions is usually conducted in a single‐behaviour paradigm. A multiple‐behaviour paradigm is introduced which overcomes bias inherent to single‐behaviour designs and allows testing of novel hypotheses. Two exploratory studies illustrate the utility of this new paradigm by investigating the role of cognitive predictors and psychological correlates of intention–behaviour relationships.MethodThe proposed method involves measuring multiple intentions across common areas of life activity at baseline and corresponding behaviours at follow‐up. In two studies, 51 intentions and behaviours were assessed (49 by self‐report, 2 objectively). In Study 1, participants (n = 126) also completed self‐reported measures of everyday cognitive failures and dysexecutive behaviours, crystallised intelligence (Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale) at baseline and Quality of Life (QoL; follow‐up). In Study 2, objective executive function measures (Stroop, Go/NoGo task and Word Fluency test) were completed by N = 30 participants.ResultsThe total number of intentions, cognitive, and QoL measures were unrelated to the percentage of intentions enacted. Crystallised intelligence was related to successful intention implementation and problems with emotion regulation were associated with forming fewer intentions and with fewer failed intentions. QoL was strongly related with more intentions, regardless of whether or not these were implemented. Study 2 showed that cognitive flexibility (word fluency) and task errors, rather than Stroop effect and Go/No‐Go performance were related, to intention–behaviour congruence.ConclusionIntention–behaviour relationships might be better understood when considering the multiple intentions and behaviours that people are engaged in at once at any one point in time. A multiple‐behaviour paradigm suggests novel hypotheses. Preliminary findings reported here require replication. Anticipated applications of the paradigm are outlined and discussed.

Highlights

  • Traditional social cognition models of behaviour such as Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) hypothesise that intention is the most immediate predictor of behaviour, and various systematic reviews have shown that intention–behaviour relationships are substantial (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011)

  • Study 1 found no trade-off between the number of intentions people form and the rate of successful enactment of intentions

  • While cognitive failure was unrelated to intentionality or to intention– behaviour relationships, people with problems in emotional regulation may avoid forming intentions and experience thereby both fewer failures and successes

Read more

Summary

Objective

Research investigating cognitive moderators of the intention–behaviour relationship and psychological consequences of failure to enact intentions is usually conducted in a single-behaviour paradigm. Two exploratory studies illustrate the utility of this new paradigm by investigating the role of cognitive predictors and psychological correlates of intention–behaviour relationships. 51 intentions and behaviours were assessed (49 by self-report, 2 objectively). In Study 1, participants (n = 126) completed self-reported measures of everyday cognitive failures and dysexecutive behaviours, crystallised intelligence (Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale) at baseline and Quality of Life (QoL; follow-up). Executive function measures (Stroop, Go/NoGo task and Word Fluency test) were completed by N = 30 participants. Study 2 showed that cognitive flexibility (word fluency) and task errors, rather than Stroop effect and Go/NoGo performance were related, to intention–behaviour congruence.

INTRODUCTION
Design
Participants
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
METHODS
OVERALL DISCUSSION
Full Text
Paper version not known

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.