Implementation Intentions and Artificial Agents

  1. González Marqués, Javier
  2. Pelta Resano, Carlos
Journal:
International journal of psychology and psychological therapy

ISSN: 1577-7057

Year of publication: 2010

Volume: 10

Issue: 1

Pages: 41-53

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: International journal of psychology and psychological therapy

Abstract

We have developed a computer simulation comparing the behavior of two artificial agents (A0 and A1), both of which imitate the use of implementation intentions for achieving a goal R. However, A0 is more balanced for obtaining the goal intention “I intend to achieve R!” while A1 is more balanced for obtaining the implementation intention “I intend to do R when situations L are encountered!”. We have accomplished the statistical analysis (including confidence intervals) and A1 improved the global performance of A0. Our simulation confirms partially the relevance of implementation intentions for social cognition in humans.

Bibliographic References

  • Bayer UC, Jaudas A, & Gollwitzer PM (2002). Do implementation intentions facilitate switching between tasks? International Symposium on Executive Functions (Poster Session), Konstanz, Germany.
  • Brandstätter V, Lengfelder A, & Gollwitzer PM (2001). Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 946-960. E
  • ndress H (2001). Die Wirksamkeit von Vorsätzen auf Gruppensleistungen. Eine empirische Untersuchung anhand von brainstorming [Implementation intentions and the reduction of social loafing in a brain storming task]. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Konstanz. Gollwitzer PM (1993).
  • Goal achievement: The role of intentions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 141-185.
  • Gollwitzer PM (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In PM Gollwitzer & JA Bargh (Eds.), The Psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 287-312). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Gollwitzer PM, Bayer UC, Steller B, & Bargh JA (2002). Delegating control to the environment: Perception, attention, and memory for pre-selected behavioural cues. Unpublished Manuscript, Konstanz, Germany. University of Konstanz.
  • Gollwitzer PM, Bayer UC, & McCulloch KC (2005). The control of the unwanted. In R Hassim, J Uleman, & JA Bargh (Eds.), The New Unconscious (pp. 485-515). Oxford: O.U.P.
  • Gollwitzer PM & Brandstätter V (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186-189.
  • Gollwitzer PM, Fujita K, & Oettingen G (2004). Planning and the implementation of goals. In RF Baumeister & KD Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 211-228). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Gollwitzer PM, & Schaal B (1998). Metacognition in action: The importance of implementation intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 124-136.
  • Gollwitzer PM, & Sheeran P (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. In M Zanna (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38 (pp. 69-119). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Gollwitzer PM, Trotschel R, & Sumner M (2002). Mental control via implementation intentions is void of rebound effects. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Konstanz.
  • Heckhausen H & Kuhl J (1985). From wishes to action: The dead ends and short cuts on the long way to action. In M Frese & J Sabini (Eds.), Goal-directed Behavior: Psychological Theory and Research on Action (pp. 134-159).
  • Hillsdale: LEA. Kinny D & Georgeff M (1991). Commitment and effectiveness of situated agents. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 69-119), Sydney.
  • Lengfelder A & Gollwitzer PM (2001). Reflective and reflexive action control in patients with frontal brain lesions. Neuropsychology, 15, 80-100.
  • Pidd M (20024). Computer Simulation in Management Science. New York: Wiley.
  • Pollack ME & Ringuette M (1990). Introducing the Tileworld: Experimentally Evaluating Agent Architectures. In Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1-13). Boston.
  • Russell S & Norvig P (1995). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  • Sheeran P & Orbell S (1999). Implementation intentions and repeated behaviour: Augmenting the predictive validity of the theory of planned behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 349-369.
  • Sheeran P & Orbell S (2000). Using implementation intentions to increase attendance for cervical cancer screening. Health Psychology, 18, 283-289.
  • Sheeran P, Webb TL, & Gollwitzer PM (2005). The interplay between goals and implementation intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 87-98
Data source: Dialnet