When planning is not enough : Fighting unhealthy snacking habits by mental contrasting with implementation intentions ( MCII )

In two experiments a self-regulatory strategy combining mental contrasting with the formation of implementation intentions (MCII) was tested for its effectiveness in diminishing unhealthy snacking habits. Study 1 (N1⁄4 51) showed that participants in the MCII condition consumed fewer unhealthy snacks than participants in a control condition who thought about and listed healthy options for snacks. In Study 2 (N1⁄4 59) MCII was more effective than mental contrasting or formulating implementation intentions alone and mental contrasting was found to increase perceived clarity about critical cues for unhealthy snacking. Together, these findings suggest that MCII is an effective strategy for fighting habits and that one of the underlying processes making MCII superior to implementation intentions alone may be that mental contrasting produces clarity about the critical cues for the unwanted habitual behavior. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Maintaining a healthy diet is presently one of the most often adopted health goals (e.g., for the Netherlands see: Covenant Obesity, 2007). However, most people adopting healthy eating goals experience difficulties with changing their eating behavior (Jeffery et al., 2000). Acknowledging the problems associated with changing unhealthy eating patterns, the present studies tested a new approach combining two established self-regulation strategies (i.e., mental contrasting with implementation intentions, MCII), for its utility in fighting unhealthy snacking habits. MCII: MENTAL CONTRASTING WITH IMPLEMENTATION INTENTIONS MCII combines two established self-regulatory strategies (mental contrasting and implementation intentions) to form one powerful strategy for behavior change (e.g., Schramm, Oettingen, Dahme, & Klinger, in press; Stadler, Oettingen, & Gollwitzer, 2009). In mental contrasting people think about an important wish regarding behavior change (e.g., ‘eating partment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, PO Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The onsumed between the three regular meals (De Graaf, 2006). A focus on snacking was deemed relevant elicit unhealthy eating (which is essential for formulating effective plans) might be difficult for snacking kes changing unhealthy snacking habits difficult, and hence likely to benefit fromMCII rather than from tions alone. Moreover, several studies have indicated that the consumption of unhealthy snacks is one of 2006; Zizza, Siega-Riz, & Popkin, 2001). s, Ltd. Received 22 March 2009 Accepted 30 October 2009 1278 Marieke A. Adriaanse et al. fewer unhealthy snacks’), imagine the positive future in the event of successful behavior change (e.g., ‘fitting into a favorite pair of jeans again’), and then mentally contrast their images of the positive future with the negative reality that stands in the way of reaching this desired future (e.g., ‘having the tendency to eat chocolate when bored’). In mental contrasting, both the positive future and the negative reality become mentally accessible and they form a strong mental association. In addition, the negative reality is perceived as an obstacle that potentially hinders attaining the desired future. If attaining the desired future is perceived as feasible, a person forms a strong goal commitment to realize the desired future (e.g., Oettingen, 2000; Oettingen, Mayer, Sevincer, Stephens, Park, & Hagenah, 2009; Oettingen, Pak, & Schnetter, 2001). Additionally, it has been argued that mental contrasting aids the identification of obstacles, or critical cues, that hinder goal realization (Oettingen et al., 2001; Oettingen, Mayer, & Thorpe, in press; Stadler et al., 2009). Specifically, mental contrasting has been proposed to be an effective tool for identifying critical cues that hinder goal realization, as it ‘‘puts a person in touch with her past experiences and knowledge’’ (Oettingen, Mayer, Thorpe, Janetzke, & Lorenz, 2005, p. 263). Indeed, a recent study (Kappes & Oettingen, 2009) indicated that the aspects of negative reality that were elaborated during mental contrasting of a feasible wish were perceived as unpleasant and as something ‘‘standing in the way’’ of their desired future that hence needed to be overcome. Moreover, the results indicated that this perception of the generated reality as something that needs to be overcome fostered persistence in goal striving. After going through the mental contrasting procedure, MCII requires that implementation intentions are formulated. Implementation intentions are simple action plans specifying when, where, and how a goal should be acted upon. An implementation intention supporting the goal to eat more fruit could for example be ‘‘If I get hungry in between meals, then I will eat an apple. ’’ By specifying one’s goal striving in this manner, a critical situation (getting hungry in between meals) is linked to a specific action (eating an apple), with the result that one becomes perceptually ready to encounter this situation and is hence less likely to miss it as a good opportunity to act. Moreover, since the situation is automatically linked to a specific behavior, one no longer has to decide in situwhat goal-directed behavior to perform when the situation arises (Gollwitzer, 1999; Parks-Stamm, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2007). In MCII, implementation intentions are formulated in such a manner that the obstacles that hinder wish fulfillment, which were identified during mental contrasting, are specified as the critical cues in the ‘if-part’ of the implementation intention. Mental contrasting and implementation intentions mutually support each other to form one powerful strategy for behavior change in two important respects. First of all, implementation intentions need to be based on strong goal commitment in order to be effective (Sheeran, Webb, & Gollwitzer, 2005) and mental contrasting can create this strong goal commitment. Secondly, implementation intentions provide the tool to put one’s goals into action. Mental contrasting aids in recognizing the obstacles for behavior change and these obstacles are subsequently addressed by implementation intentions in which the obstacle (if-part) is linked to actions to overcome the obstacle (then-part; Oettingen & Gollwitzer, in press; Stadler et al., 2009). So far, four studies have shown the efficacy of MCII compared to a control condition in different domains; increasing exercise behavior in healthy adults (Stadler et al., 2009) as well as in chronic back pain patients (Schramm et al., in press), practicing PSAT questions (Duckworth, Grant, Loew, Oettingen, & Gollwitzer, 2009), and improving time-management (Oettingen, Barry, Guttenberg, & Gollwitzer, 2009). However, all of the described studies focused on promoting the initiation of new behaviors rather than changing existing habits. Changing existing habitual behaviors is arguably more difficult than initiating new behaviors (Holland, Aarts, & Langendam, 2006) and is of particular relevance in the domain of eating behavior, where one of today’s most pressing problems is reducing unhealthy eating habits, such as unhealthy snacking (De Graaf, 2006; Jahns, Siega-Riz, & Popkin, 2001; Zizza et al., 2001).