Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:15:32.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Changing Behavior Using the Reflective-Impulsive Model

from Part I - Theory and Behavior Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2020

By
Roland Deutsch  and
Fritz Strack
Edited by
Martin S. Hagger ,
Linda D. Cameron ,
Kyra Hamilton ,
Nelli Hankonen  and
Taru Lintunen
Martin S. Hagger
Affiliation:
University of California, Merced
Linda D. Cameron
Affiliation:
University of California, Merced
Kyra Hamilton
Affiliation:
Griffith University
Nelli Hankonen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Taru Lintunen
Affiliation:
University of Jyväskylä
Get access

Summary

This chapter describes the reflective-impulsive model (RIM) and elaborates those features that are functionally important for behavioral interventions. The RIM explains behavior as being controlled by two interacting systems, which each follow a distinct set of operating principles. The reflective system operates based on propositional representations and syllogistic reasoning and affects behavior via goal-driven decisions mediated via a process of intending, which activates goal-congruent behavioral schemata until the goal associated with the decision is reached. The impulsive system operates based on associative representations, with behavioral schemata serving as a pathway to behavior that is also modulated by the reflective system. Within the impulsive system, motivational orientations of approach-avoidance as well as homeostatic dysregulation modulate the accessibility of representations in the impulsive system and, thereby, its reactivity to stimuli. The impulsive system operates at a higher degree of automaticity compared to the reflective system but is, at the same time, constrained in its processing capabilities such as being unable to process negations. Interventions based on the RIM typically aim to change evaluative associations, to prevent deprivation-driven hyper-reactivity to stimuli, and to change approach/avoidance tendencies via computer-based training. Although there are several demonstrations of their effectiveness, there is still ongoing debate about the mediators and boundary conditions of these interventions.

Keywords

dual-process theoryimpulsive systemreflective systempropositional representationssyllogistic reasoninggoal-driven decisionsassociative representationsbehavioral schemataapproach-avoidancespreading activation of knowledge structures
Type
Chapter
Information
The Handbook of Behavior Change , pp. 164 - 177
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A., & De Vries, P. (2001). On the psychology of drinking: Being thirsty and perceptually ready. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 631–642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712601162383Google Scholar
Adriaanse, M. A., van Oosten, J. M. F., de Ridder, D. T. D., de Wit, J. B. F., & Evers, C. (2011). Planning what not to eat: Ironic effects of implementation intentions negating unhealthy habits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 69–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210390523Google Scholar
Antoniewicz, F., & Brand, R. (2016). Learning to like exercising: Evaluative conditioning changes automatic evaluations of exercising and influences subsequent exercising behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38, 138–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0125CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aulbach, M. B., Knittle, K., & Haukkala, A. (2019). Implicit process interventions in eating behaviour: A meta-analysis examining mediators and moderators. Health Psychology Review, 13, 179–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2019.1571933Google Scholar
Betsch, C., & Sachse, K. (2013). Debunking vaccination myths: Strong risk negations can increase perceived vaccination risks. Health Psychology, 32, 146–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027387CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator: On the nonconscious operation of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 129–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.129Google Scholar
De Houwer, J., Thomas, S., & Baeyens, F. (2001). Association learning of likes and dislikes: A review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 853–869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.853CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, R. (2017). Associative and propositional processes from the perspective of the reflective-impulsive model. In Deutsch, R., Gawronski, B., & Hofmann, W. (Eds.), Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Human Behavior (pp. 51–68). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deutsch, R., Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (2006). At the boundaries of automaticity: Negation as reflective operation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 385–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.385CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, R., Kordts-Freudinger, R., Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (2009). Fast and fragile: A new look at the automaticity of negation processing. Experimental Psychology, 56, 434–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.6.434Google Scholar
Deutsch, R., & Strack, F. (2006a). Duality models in social psychology: From dual processes to interacting systems. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 166–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1703_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, R., & Strack, F. (2006b). Duality models in social psychology: Response to commentaries. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 265–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1703_6Google Scholar
Deutsch, R., & Strack, F. (2008). Variants of judgment and decision making: The perspective of the reflective-impulsive model. In Plessner, H., Betsch, C., & Betsch, T. (Eds.), Intuition in Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 39–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Deutsch, R., & Strack, F. (2010). Building blocks of social behavior: Reflective and impulsive processes. In Gawronski, B. & Payne, B. K. (Eds.), Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications (pp. 62–79). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, D., & Balcetis, E. (2013). Wishful seeing: How preferences shape visual perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 33–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721412463693Google Scholar
Earp, B. D., Dill, B., Harris, J. L., Ackerman, J. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2013). No sign of quitting: Incidental exposure to “no smoking” signs ironically boosts cigarette‐approach tendencies in smokers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2158–2162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, E. M., Homish, G. G., Parks, K. A., Collins, R. L., & Kiviniemi, M. T. (2015). Increasing condom use by changing people’s feelings about them: An experimental study. Health Psychology, 34, 941–950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrelly, M. C., Healton, C. G., Davis, K. C., Messeri, P., Hersey, J. C., & Haviland, M. L. (2002). Getting to the truth: Evaluating national tobacco countermarketing campaigns. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 901–907. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.92.6.901Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Regier, T. (1996). How do we tell an association from a rule? Comment on Sloman (1996). Psychological Bulletin, 119, 23–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.23Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. M., Stoner, S. A., Andersen, A. E., & Rolls, B. J. (2000). Effects of acute food deprivation on eating behavior in eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 272–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(200011)28:3%3C272::AID-EAT4%3E3.0.CO;2-QGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In Higgins, E. T. & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hoefling, A., Likowski, K. U., Deutsch, R. et al. (2009). When hunger finds no fault with moldy corn: Food deprivation reduces food-related disgust. Emotion, 9, 50–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014449Google Scholar
Hofmann, W., De Houwer, J., Perugini, M., Baeyens, F., & Crombez, G. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 390–421. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/A0018916Google Scholar
Houben, K., Havermans, R. C., & Wiers, R. W. (2010). Learning to dislike alcohol: Conditioning negative implicit attitudes toward alcohol and its effect on drinking behavior. Psychopharmacology, 211, 79–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-010-1872-1Google Scholar
Houben, K., Schoenmakers, T. M., & Wiers, R. W. (2010). I didn’t feel like drinking but I don’t know why: The effects of evaluative conditioning on alcohol-related attitudes, craving and behavior. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 1161–1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.08.012Google Scholar
Jones, A., Hardman, C. A., Lawrence, N., & Field, M. (2018). Cognitive training as a potential treatment for overweight and obesity: A critical review of the evidence. Appetite, 124, 50–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.032Google Scholar
Jones, C. R., Vilensky, M. R., Vasey, M. W., & Fazio, R. H. (2013). Approach behavior can mitigate predominately univalent negative attitudes: Evidence regarding insects and spiders. Emotion, 13, 989–996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033164Google Scholar
Kahnt, T., Heinzle, J., Park, S. Q., & Haynes, J. D. (2010). The neural code of reward anticipation in human orbitofrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 6010–6015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.091283810Google Scholar
Kakoschke, N., Kemps, E., & Tiggemann, M. (2017). Approach bias modification training and consumption: A review of the literature. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.08.007Google Scholar
Krieglmeyer, R., De Houwer, J., & Deutsch, R. (2013). On the nature of automatically triggered approach–avoidance behavior. Emotion Review, 5, 280–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1754073913477501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Chun, W. Y., Erb, H. P., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & Spiegel, S. (2003). A parametric unimodel of human judgment: Integrating dual-process frameworks in social cognition from a single-mode perspective. In Forgas, J. P., Williams, K. D., & von Hippel, W. (Eds.), Social Judgments: Implicit and Explicit Processes (pp. 137–161). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118, 97–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020762CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeber, S., Grosshans, M., Herpertz, S., Kiefer, F., & Herpertz, S. C. (2013). Hunger modulates behavioral disinhibition and attention allocation to food-associated cues in normal-weight controls. Appetite, 71, 32–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.008Google Scholar
Lozano, D. I., Crites, S. L., & Aikman, S. N. (1999). Changes in food attitudes as a function of hunger. Appetite, 32, 207–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.1998.0205Google Scholar
Măgurean, S., Constantin, T., & Sava, F. A. (2016). The indirect effect of evaluative conditioning on smoking. Journal of Substance Use, 21, 198–203.Google Scholar
Mayo, R., Schul, Y., & Burnstein, E. (2004). “I am not guilty” vs. “I am innocent”: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 433–449.Google Scholar
Mehl, N., Mueller-Wieland, L., Mathar, D., & Horstmann, A. (2018). Retraining automatic action tendencies in obesity. Physiology and Behavior, 192, 50–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.03.031Google Scholar
Mela, D. J., Aaron, J. I., & Gatenby, S. J. (1996). Relationships of consumer characteristics and food deprivation to food purchasing behavior. Physiology and Behavior, 60, 1331–1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(96)00241–7Google Scholar
Melnikoff, D. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2018). The insidious number two. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 668–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.005Google Scholar
Mertens, G., Van Dessel, P., & De Houwer, J. (2018). The contextual malleability of approach-avoidance training effects: Approaching or avoiding fear conditioned stimuli modulates effects of approach-avoidance training. Cognition and Emotion, 32, 341–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1308315Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 183–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000855Google Scholar
Moors, A. (2014). Examining the mapping problem in dual-process models. In Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., & Trope, Y. (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind (pp. 20–34). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Mühlig, S., Paulick, J., Lindenmeyer, J., Rinck, M., Cina, R., & Wiers, R. W. (2016). Applying the “cognitive bias modification” concept to smoking cessation: A systematic review. Sucht 62, 333–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/0939-5911/a000454Google Scholar
Nederkoorn, C., Guerrieri, R., Havermans, R. C., Roefs, A., & Jansen, A. (2009). The interactive effect of hunger and impulsivity on food intake and purchase in a virtual supermarket. International Journal of Obesity, 33, 905–912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2009.98Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Kanouse, D. E. (1969). Obesity, food deprivation, and supermarket shopping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 289–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0027799Google Scholar
Orquin, J. L., & Kurzban, R. (2016). A meta-analysis of blood glucose effects on human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 546–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000035CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19 (pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Polivy, J., Coleman, J., & Herman, C. P. (2005). The effect of deprivation on food cravings and eating behavior in restrained and unrestrained eaters. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 38, 301–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.20195Google Scholar
Radel, R., & Clément-Guillotin, C. (2012). Evidence of motivational influences in early visual perception: Hunger modulates conscious access. Psychological Science, 23, 232–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611427920Google Scholar
Rinck, M., Wiers, R. W., Becker, E. S., & Lindenmeyer, J. (2018). Relapse prevention in abstinent alcoholics by cognitive bias modification: Clinical effects of combining approach bias modification and attention bias modification. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86, 1005–1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000321Google Scholar
Seibt, B., Häfner, M., & Deutsch, R. (2007). Prepared to eat: How immediate affective and motivational responses to food cues are influenced by food deprivation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 359–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.365Google Scholar
Shaw, J. A., Forman, E. M., Espel, H. M. et al. (2016). Can evaluative conditioning decrease soft drink consumption? Appetite, 105, 60–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.016Google Scholar
Sherman, J. W. (2006). On building a better process model: It’s not only how many, but which ones and by which means? Psychological Inquiry, 17, 173–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1703_3Google Scholar
Stockburger, J., Schmälzle, R., Flaisch, T., Bublatzky, F., & Schupp, H. T. (2009). The impact of hunger on food cue processing: An event-related brain potential study. NeuroImage, 47, 1819–1829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.071Google Scholar
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2015). The duality of everyday life: Dual-process and dual system models in social psychology. In Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Borgida, E., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1: Attitudes and Social Cognition (pp. 891–927). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14341-028Google Scholar
Tello, N., Bocage-Barthélémy, Y., Dandaba, M., Jaafari, N., & Chatard, A. (2018). Evaluative conditioning: A brief computer-delivered intervention to reduce college student drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 82, 14–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.02.018Google Scholar
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3Google Scholar
Van Dessel, P., Hughes, S., & De Houwer, J. (2018). Consequence-based approach-avoidance training: A new and improved method for changing behavior. Psychological Science, 29, 1899–1910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797618796478Google Scholar
Wang, D., Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2020). Ironic effects of thought suppression: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619898795Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wegner, D. M., Ansfield, M., & Pilloff, D. (1998). The putt and the pendulum: Ironic effects of the mental control of action. Psychological Science, 9, 196–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiers, R. W., Rinck, M., Kordts, R., Houben, K., & Strack, F. (2010). Retraining automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers. Addiction, 105, 279–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02775.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wispé, L. G., & Drambarean, N. C. (1953). Physiological need, word frequency, and visual duration thresholds. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 25–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054454Google Scholar
Wiswede, D., Koranyi, N., Müller, F., Langner, O., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Validating the truth of propositions: Behavioral and ERP indicators of truth evaluation processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 647–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss042Google Scholar
Wittekind, C. E., Feist, A., Schneider, B. C., Moritz, S., & Fritzsche, A. (2015). The approach-avoidance task as an online intervention in cigarette smoking: A pilot study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 46, 115–120.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×