To move from commitment to action, planners must think about the future and decide when to initiate. We demonstrate that planners prefer to initiate on upcoming days that immediately follow a temporal boundary. For example, aspiring dieters who considered a time horizon from Thursday, February 27th to Tuesday, March 4th showed expectation increases from Days 4 to 5 (Sunday to Monday) when induced to think of weekdays and from Days 2 to 3 (February 28th to March 1st) when induced to think of calendar dates. Using both causal steps- and moderation-based approaches, we demonstrate that this occurs (in part) because planners neglect situational constraints when evaluating initiation opportunities after (vs. before) temporal boundaries. A field experiment demonstrated a costly consequence: Aspiring dieters were more likely to sacrifice 1 week of access to an expensive weight-loss program if it allowed them to start on a day they perceived to follow a temporal boundary.
AyersJ. W.AlthouseB. M.JohnsonM.DredzeM.CohenJ. E. (2014). What’s the healthiest day? Circaseptan (weekly) rhythms in healthy considerations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 47, 73–76.
2.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
3.
BartelsD. M.RipsL. J. (2010). Psychological connectedness and intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 49–69.
4.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
5.
BobkoP. (1986). A solution to some dilemmas when testing hypotheses about ordinal interactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 323–326.
6.
BrickellT. A.ChatzisarantisN. L. D. (2007). Using self-determination to examine the motivational correlates and predictive utility of spontaneous exercise implementation intentions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 758–770.
7.
BroganD. R.KutnerM. H. (1980). Comparative analyses of pretest-posttest research designs. The American Statistician, 34, 229–232.
DaiH.MilkmanK. L.RiisJ. (2015). Put your imperfections behind you: Temporal landmarks spur goal initiation when they signal new beginnings. Psychological Science, 26, 1927–1936.
10.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
11.
FestingerL. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
FishbachA.ZhangY.KooM. (2009). The dynamics of self-regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 315–344.
13.
FleissJ. L.LevinB.PaikM. C. (1981). The measurement of interrater agreement. In FleissJ. L.LevinB.PaikM. C. (Eds.), Statistical methods for rates and proportions (pp. 598–626). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
14.
FreitasA. L.LibermanN.SaloveyP.HigginsE. T. (2002). When to begin? Regulatory focus and initiating goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 121–130.
15.
FujitaK.TropeY.LibermanN.Levin-SagiM. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351–367.
16.
GollwitzerP. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 141–185.
17.
GollwitzerP. M.BrandstätterV. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186–199.
18.
HarkinB.WebbT. L.ChangB. P.PrestwichA.ConnerM.KellarI.…SheeranP. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 198–229.
HeckhausenH. (1991). Motivation and action. New York, NY: Springer.
21.
HigginsE. T.KingG. A.MavinG. H. (1982). Individual construct accessibility and subjective impressions and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 35–47.
22.
HuckS. W.McLeanR. A. (1975). Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze data from a pretest-posttest design: A potentially confusing task. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 511–518.
23.
HuttenlocherJ.HedgesL. V.ProhaskaV. (1992). Memory for day of the week: A 5+2 day cycle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 313–325.
24.
JobV.DweckC. S.WaltonG. M. (2010). Ego depletion—Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693.
25.
KooM.FishbachA. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 183–195.
26.
KoriatA.FischhoffB. (1974). What day is today? An inquiry into the process of time orientation. Memory and Cognition, 2, 201–205.
27.
KruegerJ.ClementR. W. (1994). Memory-based judgments about multiple categories: A revision and extension of Tajfel’s accentuation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 35–47.
28.
LibermanN.TropeY. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.
29.
MacKinnonD. P.FairchildA. J. (2009). Current directions in mediation analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 16–20.
30.
PeetzJ.WilsonA. E. (2013). The post-birthday world: Consequences of temporal landmarks for temporal self-appraisal and motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 249–266.
31.
SagarinB. J.AmblerJ. K.LeeE. M. (2014). An ethical approach to peeking at data. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 293–304.
32.
ShermanS. J. (1980). On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 211–221.
33.
StrubeM. J.BobkoP. (1989). Testing hypotheses about ordinal interactions: Simulations and further comments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 247–252.
34.
Touré-TilleryM.FishbachA. (2015). It was(n’t) me: Exercising restraint when choices appear self-diagnostic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1117–1131.
ZaubermanG.LynchJ. G.Jr. (2005). Resource slack and propensity to discount delayed investments of time versus money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 23–37.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
