Positive thinking without an implementation strategy is ineffective in achieving goals, found NYU’s Gabriele Oettingen.
She advocated using “Mental Contrast” (identifying obstacles to a goal) combined with Implementation Intentions (ways to overcome these obstacles) summarised as “WOOP”:

• Wish,
• Outcome,
• Obstacles (Mental Contrast),
• Plan (Implementation Intentions).

  
  Mental Contrast  (considering possible Obstacles) was effective when perceived probability of success was average or high.
  Mental Contrast combined with Implementation Intentions (Developing a Mitigation Plan), was associated with improved self-regulation and performance.

Oettingen and University of London colleague Andreas Kappas reported two less effective approaches to goal engagement:

– Indulging (wishful thinking) – Thinking about the desired future state without considering obstacles and ways to overcome them,

– Dwelling (ruminating) – Thinking about the present reality without identifying future goals and ways to achieve them.

Volunteers who spent more time imagining working in a “dream job,” but who didn’t consider obstacles and ways to overcome them received fewer job offers and lower starting salaries, found Oettingen and Doris Mayer of University of Hamburg. These participants also accurately had lower expectations of success.

The research team differentiated the motivational impact of:

• Positive expectations for future success when probability is high->high effort->successful performance,
• Positive fantasies when the probability of success is low, based on not considering obstacles and mitigations >no increased effort.

Mental Contrast helped people disengage from unfeasible goals like reviving an ended relationship or achieving an unattainable professional identity.
When chances of success are low, people can combine Mental Contrast with an estimated probability of success to move on to more feasible goals.

In one study, volunteers increased effort when they saw the “silver lining” in a negative personal attribute (“impulsivity”) and linked it with a positive element (“creativity”).

These participants showed greater effort-based creativity and results than those who were given no information or told that there’s no association between impulsivity and creativity.

Mental Contrast (identifying Obstacles) between a desired future with a present reality also increased physiological activation measured by systolic blood pressure and grip strength as well as increasing performance effort, reported University of Hamburg’s A. Timur Sevincer and P. Daniel Busatta collaborating with Oettingen.

Coupling Mental Contrast (identifying Obstacles) with Implementation Intentions (Developing Mitigation Plans) helped economically-disadvantaged children convert positive thoughts about future outcomes into effective action thatsignificantly improved their school grades, school attendance, and classroom conduct. found University of Pennsylvania’s Angela Lee Duckworth, Teri A. Kirby of University of Washington with NYU’s Peter Gollwitzer and Oettingen.

Mental Contrast can increase motivation to act when used with Implementation Intentions.

• How have you seen Mental Contrast and Implementation Intentions affect your motivation and performance?

RELATED POSTS:

• Action Beats Visualization to Improve Performance
• “Grit” Rivals IQ and EQ to Achieve Goals
• Multiple Paths Toward Goals Can Motivate, then Derail Success
• Still Fulfilling Your New Year’s Resolutions?
• Working toward Goals with “Implementation Intentions”

©Kathryn Welds