Cited by 55Behavioral Health and InterventionsBehavioral and Psychological StudiesMedia Influence and Health

Less is more: The effect of multiple implementation intentions targeting unhealthy snacking habits

Open access
Verhoeven, Aukje A. C., Adriaanse, Marieke A., de Ridder, Denise T. D., de Vet, Emely, Fennis, Bob M.·2013·European Journal of Social Psychology

Abstract

Implementation intentions have been shown to effectively change counter‐intentional habits. Research has, however, almost solely been concerned with the effectiveness of a single plan. In the present research, we investigated the behavioral and cognitive implications of making multiple implementation intentions targeting unhealthy snacking habits and its underlying processes, linking multiple habitual snacking cues to healthy alternatives. Study 1 revealed that formulating multiple implementation intentions was not effective in decreasing unhealthy snacking, whereas formulating a single plan successfully induced behavior change. By using a lexical decision task in Study 2, it was found that when making a single plan, but not multiple plans, the healthy alternative became cognitively more accessible in response to a critical cue prime than the habitual response. However, when making additional plans in an unrelated domain, the negative effects of making multiple plans were absent. In sum, the current findings suggest that formulating multiple implementation intentions is ineffective when changing unwanted behavior. These reduced effects of multiple implementation intentions do not occur when making the plan but are rather due to interference in the enacting phase of the planning process. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejsp.1963

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verhoeven, A. A. C., Adriaanse, M. A., de Ridder, D. T. D., de Vet, E., & Fennis, B. M.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Utrecht University The Netherlands
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Verhoeven, Aukje A. C.
Venue
European Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07-02
Volume
43
Issue
5
Pages
344-354
ISSN
  • 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0992
OpenAlex
W1948358455
Cited by
55
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
implementation intentions, unhealthy snacking, habit change, healthy food alternatives, cognitive accessibility, lexical decision, behavior change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review