Does implementing intentions rely on automatic or controlled processes? A test through inhibitory motor training

Abstract

Background: Theory of planned behavior predicts that intention necessarily precedes behaviors and that intentions depend on “top – down†processes (i.e. controlled). However, other models suggest that helping individuals to form intentions and to plan their behaviors would rely on “bottom-up†processes (i.e. automatic; implementation intentions). Several studies showed that approaching or using a specific object can be triggered by automatic motor or affective activation and inhibited via training. Training could rely on automatic (i.e. response suppression) or controlled (i.e. inhibitory control) processes. Methods: One hundred and thirty participants will be randomly assigned to a 2 (implementation intention: yes vs. no) x 2 (inhibitory training: response suppression (modified go-no go task) vs inhibitory control (modified stop signal task)). Participants will complete self-report measures of cigarette consumption, smoking cessation intention and the Fagerstrom questionnaire. We will also measure exhaled carbon monoxide. Next, half the sample will complete an implementation intention to reduce smoking. Participants will then be randomly assigned to either response suppression or inhibitory control training. We will assess self-reported consumption and exhaled carbon monoxide, as well as manipulation checks measure for inhibitory training one week later. Expected results: We expect lowest levels of cigarette consumption and exhaled carbon monoxide in participants who formed an implemention intention and received inhibitory control training relative to participants receiving no implementation intention or response suppression training. Current stage of work: Data is currently being collected (45 participants). Discussion: Implications for the theories and efficiency of implementation intentions will be discussed.