The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
The when and how of planning: Meta-analysis of the scope and components of implementation intentions in 642 tests
Abstract
When and how should one plan? We estimated the scope (when) of implementation intentions by computing effect sizes for different outcomes, samples, and study characteristics, and tested the components (how) of implementation intentions by analysing the format, processes of formation, and contents of plans. Across 642 independent tests, forming implementation intentions proved effective for cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes (.27 ≤ d ≤ .66). Effect sizes were larger when plans had a contingent (if-then) format, participants were highly motivated to pursue the goal, and plans were rehearsed. We developed a new taxonomy of the cues (e.g., time-and-place, task juncture) and responses (e.g., cognitive procedures, ignore- or inner speech-responses) specified in implementation intentions and tested their efficacy in promoting outcomes. Our review underlines the utility of implementation intentions in helping people regulate their thoughts, feelings, and actions and offers a taxonomy of plan contents that could inspire further tests of implementation intentions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Metadata
- Authors
- Sheeran, P., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Listrom, O.
- Venue
- Taylor & Francis
- Publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- Published
- 2025
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The when and how of planning: Meta-analysis of the scope and components of implementation intentions in 642 tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.17615/mmbd-f786
- The paper
- Sheeran, P., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Listrom, O. (2025). The when and how of planning: Meta-analysis of the scope and components of implementation intentions in 642 tests. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.17615/mmbd-f786
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
