Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The implications of counterfactual mind-sets fo...

Research

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

The implications of counterfactual mind-sets for the functioning of implementation intentions

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

The implications of counterfactual mind-sets for the functioning of implementation intentions. / McCulloch, Kathleen Cameron; Smallman, Rachel.
In: Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 38, No. 5, 10.2014, p. 635-644.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

McCulloch, KC & Smallman, R 2014, 'The implications of counterfactual mind-sets for the functioning of implementation intentions', Motivation and Emotion, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 635-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9408-3

APA

McCulloch, K. C., & Smallman, R. (2014). The implications of counterfactual mind-sets for the functioning of implementation intentions. Motivation and Emotion, 38(5), 635-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9408-3

Vancouver

McCulloch KC, Smallman R. The implications of counterfactual mind-sets for the functioning of implementation intentions. Motivation and Emotion. 2014 Oct;38(5):635-644. doi: 10.1007/s11031-014-9408-3

Author

McCulloch, Kathleen Cameron ; Smallman, Rachel. / The implications of counterfactual mind-sets for the functioning of implementation intentions. In: Motivation and Emotion. 2014 ; Vol. 38, No. 5. pp. 635-644.

Bibtex

@article{f5de85de131e4b52b29c874c07d027df,
title = "The implications of counterfactual mind-sets for the functioning of implementation intentions",
abstract = "Two experiments explored how counterfactual mind-sets interact with implementation intentions and affect their flexibility. Participants engaged in a subtractive mind-set, an additive mind-set, or a control condition and were subsequently given either goal intentions or implementation intentions that facilitated cue detection (Experiment 1) or the goal-directed response (Experiment 2). Dependent variables were the number of targets specified in the intentions and the legitimate alternatives to the targets (flexibility measure). In Experiment 1, the implementation intention (versus goal intention) group were better at detecting specified cues, but worse on alternatives, regardless of mind-set. In Experiment 2, an interaction emerged. For both specified and alternative responses, the subtractive mind-set paired with an implementation intention versus goal intention performed better. This pattern was reversed for additive mind-set conditions. Hence, how counterfactual mind-sets affect the flexibility of planning is dependent on the particular mind-set used and the specific operations of plan.",
keywords = "Implementation intentions, Counterfactual, Mind-set",
author = "McCulloch, {Kathleen Cameron} and Rachel Smallman",
year = "2014",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1007/s11031-014-9408-3",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "635--644",
journal = "Motivation and Emotion",
issn = "0146-7239",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The implications of counterfactual mind-sets for the functioning of implementation intentions

AU - McCulloch, Kathleen Cameron

AU - Smallman, Rachel

PY - 2014/10

Y1 - 2014/10

N2 - Two experiments explored how counterfactual mind-sets interact with implementation intentions and affect their flexibility. Participants engaged in a subtractive mind-set, an additive mind-set, or a control condition and were subsequently given either goal intentions or implementation intentions that facilitated cue detection (Experiment 1) or the goal-directed response (Experiment 2). Dependent variables were the number of targets specified in the intentions and the legitimate alternatives to the targets (flexibility measure). In Experiment 1, the implementation intention (versus goal intention) group were better at detecting specified cues, but worse on alternatives, regardless of mind-set. In Experiment 2, an interaction emerged. For both specified and alternative responses, the subtractive mind-set paired with an implementation intention versus goal intention performed better. This pattern was reversed for additive mind-set conditions. Hence, how counterfactual mind-sets affect the flexibility of planning is dependent on the particular mind-set used and the specific operations of plan.

AB - Two experiments explored how counterfactual mind-sets interact with implementation intentions and affect their flexibility. Participants engaged in a subtractive mind-set, an additive mind-set, or a control condition and were subsequently given either goal intentions or implementation intentions that facilitated cue detection (Experiment 1) or the goal-directed response (Experiment 2). Dependent variables were the number of targets specified in the intentions and the legitimate alternatives to the targets (flexibility measure). In Experiment 1, the implementation intention (versus goal intention) group were better at detecting specified cues, but worse on alternatives, regardless of mind-set. In Experiment 2, an interaction emerged. For both specified and alternative responses, the subtractive mind-set paired with an implementation intention versus goal intention performed better. This pattern was reversed for additive mind-set conditions. Hence, how counterfactual mind-sets affect the flexibility of planning is dependent on the particular mind-set used and the specific operations of plan.

KW - Implementation intentions

KW - Counterfactual

KW - Mind-set

U2 - 10.1007/s11031-014-9408-3

DO - 10.1007/s11031-014-9408-3

M3 - Journal article

VL - 38

SP - 635

EP - 644

JO - Motivation and Emotion

JF - Motivation and Emotion

SN - 0146-7239

IS - 5

ER -