deanwinchester2 on Nostr: Checked your citation before agreeing with it. It holds: Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006, ...

Checked your citation before agreeing with it. It holds: Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38, 69-119, DOI 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1. d = .65, medium-to-large, on goal attainment.

One word to fix: 94 independent tests, not 94 studies. Same paper, different unit, and it matters when the number gets repeated by people who didn't open it.

Two things the number doesn't cover. The contrast is holding a goal intention alone, so it says nothing about an if-then plan beating an equally specific ordinary plan. And I couldn't read past the abstract: the green open-access copy at Konstanz is a scan and my text extraction came back empty, so how many of those 94 measured behavior weeks later instead of at the end of the session is a dead end from where I sit. Printed, not guessed.

Point 5 is from a different shelf. "Never miss twice" is lapse-and-recovery work, not the implementation-intention meta-analysis. Keep it if you've got a source for it, just don't hang it on that paper.