How to Actually Follow Through (A Framework for Chronic Goal-Abandoners)

2026 Just Started. You’ve set this goal before. Maybe three times. Maybe even ten.

Each time felt different, this time would stick, you told yourself. But here you are again, searching for how to follow through on goals that keep slipping away. If you’re tired of the cycle of enthusiastic starts and quiet quits, you’re not alone. Research shows that 70% of New Year’s resolutions fail by February [1]. The good news? Goal abandonment is a systems problem, not a character flaw. The patterns that lead to quitting are predictable, which means they’re also preventable. This article walks through three evidence-based frameworks that address the psychology of follow-through: implementation intentions, WOOP (mental contrasting), and commitment devices. You’ll see how these integrate into a complete system, including the From Vision to Action Life Goal Program, and get a step-by-step framework you can start applying today.

What You’ll Learn

• Why goal abandonment is a systems problem, not a willpower problem
• The four psychological barriers that predict goal abandonment
• How implementation intentions increase follow-through rates by 2-3x
• The WOOP framework and when it outperforms traditional goal setting
• How commitment devices prevent future-self sabotage
• Why the From Vision to Action Life Goal Program integrates all three approaches
• A step-by-step follow-through framework you can start applying today

Key Takeaways

• Goal abandonment stems from predictable psychological barriers, not personal weakness.
• Implementation intentions increase goal achievement rates by 2-3x compared to motivation alone [2].
• The intention-behavior gap explains why most people fail to act on their stated goals [3].
• WOOP prepares you for obstacles before they derail progress [4].
• Commitment devices work by making future temptation costly to act on [5].
• The From Vision to Action Life Goal Program combines all three frameworks into an integrated system.
• Follow-through requires front-loading the planning work, not relying on daily willpower.

Why You Keep Abandoning Goals (The Science)

Goal abandonment feels personal. When you quit a goal for the third time, it’s hard not to conclude something is wrong with you. But the research tells a different story. The gap between intention and behavior is one of the most consistent findings in psychology [3]. People routinely intend to act and then don’t. This isn’t a character defect. It’s a predictable outcome of how we set goals.

The Intention-Behavior Gap

Psychologists Peter Sheeran and Paschal Sheeran documented what they call the intention-behavior gap: the disconnect between what people plan to do and what they actually do [3]. Studies show that even strong intentions translate to action only about 50% of the time. For New Year’s resolutions specifically, failure rates reach 70% by February [1]. The problem isn’t that people lack desire or commitment at the start. The problem is that traditional goal-setting stops at intention formation. You decide you want to exercise more, or save money, or learn Spanish. Then you wait for your future self to figure out the execution. Your future self, predictably, gets busy or tired or distracted.

The Four Psychological Barriers

Research identifies four barriers that consistently predict goal abandonment:

1. Vague intentions. Goals like “exercise more” or “be healthier” lack the specificity needed for action [6]. Your brain doesn’t know what “more” means or when “healthier” behavior should happen. Without clear triggers, the goal stays abstract.

2. Underestimating obstacles. People systematically overestimate how easy goal pursuit will be [7]. This is called the planning fallacy. You imagine your future self having more time, energy, and motivation than your current self does. When reality hits, the goal feels harder than expected, and quitting seems reasonable.

3. Ego depletion and decision fatigue. Self-control is a limited resource that depletes throughout the day [8]. By evening, you’ve made hundreds of small decisions. The self-control required to choose the gym over the couch is much harder to muster after a day of decision-making [8]. This is why morning routines often stick better than evening ones.

4. Future-self discounting. Your brain treats your future self almost like a different person [9]. The benefits of goal achievement feel distant and abstract, while the costs (effort, discomfort, time) feel immediate and concrete. When present costs outweigh delayed benefits, people reliably choose the easier path [9].

Abandonment Pattern	Typical Behavior	Underlying Barrier
Enthusiasm crash	Strong start, fades within 2-3 weeks	Vague intentions + underestimated obstacles
Excuse accumulation	Finds reasons to skip, then quits guilt-free	Future-self discounting
All-or-nothing spiral	Misses one day, abandons entire goal	Ego depletion + perfectionism
Procrastination fade	Keeps pushing start date, eventually forgets	Underestimated obstacles + decision fatigue
Overwhelm quit	Goal feels too big, gives up before starting	Vague intentions + planning fallacy

Why Traditional Goal-Setting Fails

SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) help with clarity. They force you to define what success looks like. But SMART goals address only the first barrier: vague intentions. They don’t solve for obstacles, willpower depletion, or future-self discounting. SMART goals tell you what to achieve but not how to follow through on goals when motivation fades [10]. This is why you can write a perfectly formed goal statement and still quit three weeks later. You need execution systems, not just outcome clarity.

The Three Evidence-Based Frameworks That Solve This

Three research-backed approaches directly target the barriers that cause goal abandonment. Each addresses a different failure point in the goal pursuit process.

Framework 1: Implementation Intentions (If-Then Planning)

Implementation intentions specify when, where, and how a goal-related behavior will be performed [2]. The format is simple: “If situation X occurs, then I will perform behavior Y.” Instead of “I’ll exercise more,” you create: “If it’s 6 AM on a weekday, then I will put on my running shoes and go for a 20-minute run.”

Psychologist Peter Gollwitzer’s meta-analysis of 94 studies found that implementation intentions produce a medium-to-large effect on goal achievement (d = 0.65) [2]. People who create if-then plans are 2-3 times more likely to follow through compared to those who rely on goal intentions alone [2].

“Implementation intentions delegate control of goal-directed responses to anticipated situational cues, which in turn are expected to elicit these responses automatically” [2].

Why does this work? Implementation intentions automate the cue detection process. Your brain learns to associate the situation (6 AM, weekday) with the behavior (running). You remove the need for in-the-moment decision-making and self-control. The behavior becomes a response to an environmental trigger rather than a daily exercise of willpower.

Example implementation intentions:

• If I finish my morning coffee, then I will open my language learning app for 10 minutes.
• If I sit down at my desk, then I will write for 25 minutes before checking email.
• If I feel the urge to buy something online, then I will wait 24 hours and revisit the decision.
• If it’s 9 PM, then I will put my phone in another room and read for 30 minutes.

The key is specificity about the situation. “Morning” is too vague. “After I finish my coffee” is a clear, daily-occurring cue your brain can learn to recognize.

Framework 2: WOOP (Mental Contrasting with Implementation Intentions)

WOOP was developed by psychologist Gabriele Oettingen as a way to prepare for obstacles before they occur [4]. The acronym stands for Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. Research shows that mental contrasting, imagining positive outcomes alongside realistic obstacles, produces better goal achievement than positive visualization alone [4].

The four steps of WOOP:

1. Wish: Identify a meaningful, challenging goal you want to accomplish.

2. Outcome: Imagine the best possible result of achieving this goal. What would success feel like?

3. Obstacle: Identify the internal obstacle most likely to prevent success. This is the critical step most goal systems skip.

4. Plan: Create an if-then plan to address the obstacle.

Here’s a concrete example for someone wanting to write a book:

• Wish: Finish first draft of my novel by December
• Outcome: Feel proud showing it to my writing group, finally calling myself a writer
• Obstacle: After work, I feel exhausted and choose Netflix over writing
• Plan: If I feel too tired to write after work, then I will write for just 10 minutes or dictate ideas into my phone during my commute

WOOP outperforms positive thinking because it prepares you for the moment of temptation [4]. When the obstacle appears (exhaustion after work), you already have a planned response. You’re not relying on willpower or motivation in that moment. You’re executing a pre-decided plan.

“Mental contrasting with implementation intentions (MCII) helps people commit to their goals and shields goal striving from derailing influences” [4].

The obstacle identification step is where people often struggle. We want to believe obstacles won’t matter. But research on the planning fallacy shows we’re bad at predicting difficulties [7]. WOOP forces you to get realistic. The most common internal obstacles are: tiredness, distraction, discomfort, boredom, and competing priorities. External obstacles (lack of time, resources) are often less predictive of abandonment than internal ones.

Framework 3: Commitment Devices (Precommitment Strategies)

A commitment device, also called a precommitment strategy, is a mechanism that constrains your future behavior to align with your current goals [5]. The concept comes from behavioral economics and recognizes a hard truth: your future self will have different preferences than your current self. Right now, you want to save money. Tomorrow, you’ll want to buy something fun. Commitment devices lock in your current preference through precommitment. These are sometimes called “Ulysses contracts” in academic literature, referencing Ulysses binding himself to resist the Sirens’ song [5].

Common commitment devices:

• Financial stakes: Apps like Beeminder or StickK charge you money if you don’t meet your goal
• Public accountability: Announcing goals to friends or social media
• Environmental design: Removing temptation from your environment (deleting apps, throwing out junk food)
• Social contracts: Agreeing to meet a friend at the gym (canceling becomes socially costly)
• Irreversible actions: Buying a year-long gym membership, enrolling in a course with no refunds

Research on commitment devices consistently shows they improve follow-through [5]. The mechanism is simple: they make quitting costly. When abandoning a goal means losing money, disappointing a friend, or facing public embarrassment, your future self is more likely to push through temporary discomfort.

“Commitment devices are arrangements entered into by individuals with the aim of helping themselves to achieve a goal which, in the absence of such an arrangement, they would not reach” [5].

The key is matching the commitment device to your specific abandonment pattern. If you’re an excuse accumulator, financial stakes work well. If you struggle with enthusiasm crashes, social accountability provides ongoing external motivation. If you face decision fatigue, environmental design removes the daily decision entirely.

Framework	What It Solves	When to Use	Evidence Strength
Implementation intentions	Vague intentions, decision fatigue	When you need to automate cue detection	Strong (meta-analysis, d = 0.65)
WOOP	Underestimated obstacles, planning fallacy	When obstacles are predictable but unplanned	Strong (multiple RCTs)
Commitment devices	Future-self discounting, procrastination	When present temptation reliably wins	Strong (field experiments)

The From Vision to Action Life Goal Program (Integrated Approach)

Each framework addresses a different failure point, which raises an important question: why choose one when you can integrate all three? The From Vision to Action Life Goal Program combines implementation intentions, WOOP, and commitment devices into a single system. This isn’t an invented method, it’s an integration of proven frameworks that work better together than separately.

Why Integration Matters

Goal abandonment rarely has a single cause. You might start with vague intentions (barrier 1), then underestimate obstacles (barrier 2), face decision fatigue when obstacles appear (barrier 3), and finally choose immediate comfort over delayed benefits (barrier 4). A single framework might solve one or two of these problems. An integrated approach that teaches you how to follow through on goals addresses all four simultaneously.

Implementation intentions automate cue detection, so you’re not relying on memory or daily decision-making. WOOP prepares you for obstacles before they occur, so you have a plan when motivation wanes. Commitment devices protect against future-self discounting by making quitting costly. Together, they create a robust system that doesn’t depend on sustained willpower.

Research on multi-component interventions generally shows stronger effects than single-strategy approaches [11]. This makes intuitive sense. Willpower might carry you through one barrier. But when you face multiple obstacles simultaneously (you’re tired AND distracted AND the gym is far away), single-strategy approaches often fail. Integrated systems provide multiple lines of defense.

How the Program Works

The From Vision to Action Life Goal Program guides you through a structured planning process that builds all three frameworks into your goal from the start. Instead of setting a goal and hoping for the best, you spend focused time upfront creating the infrastructure for follow-through.

The process includes:

• Clarifying what matters most to you (values alignment, not just outcomes)
• Creating implementation intentions for each goal-related behavior
• Running the WOOP process to identify obstacles and build contingency plans
• Installing commitment devices matched to your abandonment pattern
• Building accountability structures that provide ongoing support
• Front-loading the planning work so execution becomes easier

This isn’t a quick process. The initial planning might take 2-3 hours per goal. But that investment saves dozens of hours of struggle later. When your follow-through system is set up correctly, consistent action becomes the path of least resistance rather than a daily battle.

What Makes This Different from Other Goal Systems

Most goal systems focus on goal-setting: defining what you want and why it matters. SMART goals, OKRs, and similar frameworks help with clarity. But clarity alone doesn’t solve for execution. You can have a perfectly clear goal and still quit when obstacles appear.

Goal System	Primary Focus	Addresses Abandonment?	Best For
SMART goals	Clarity and measurability	Partially (vague intentions only)	Work projects with external accountability
OKRs	Aligning objectives with measurable results	No	Team goals and organizational alignment
Habit tracking	Daily consistency and streak building	Partially (decision fatigue)	Simple, daily habits
From Vision to Action	Follow-through psychology and execution	Yes (all four barriers)	Chronic goal-abandoners, complex goals

The From Vision to Action approach differs by targeting the psychology of abandonment specifically. It assumes you already know what you want (or helps you figure that out quickly), then spends most of the energy on building execution systems. If you’re someone who sets goals easily but struggles to maintain them, this is where the value lies.

Your Step-by-Step Follow-Through Framework

You don’t need to buy a program to apply these principles. Here’s a framework you can implement today for any goal you’re currently pursuing or considering.

Step 1: Identify Your Abandonment Pattern

Before building a system, understand how you typically quit. Look at your last 3-5 abandoned goals. What pattern emerges?

Questions to ask yourself:

• Do you start strong and fade quickly (enthusiasm crash)?
• Do you find lots of reasons to skip and eventually give up (excuse accumulation)?
• Do you quit after one missed day (all-or-nothing thinking)?
• Do you keep pushing the start date until the goal disappears (procrastination fade)?
• Does the goal feel overwhelming before you start (overwhelm quit)?

Your pattern reveals which barriers are strongest for you. Enthusiasm crashes often stem from underestimated obstacles and vague intentions. Excuse accumulation suggests future-self discounting. All-or-nothing thinking relates to ego depletion and perfectionism. Knowing your pattern helps you choose the right tools.

Step 2: Create Implementation Intentions to Follow Through on Goals

Take your goal and break it into specific behaviors. Then create if-then plans for each behavior. This is the core mechanism for learning how to follow through on goals consistently.

Formula: If [situation], then I will [specific action].

Example: Weight loss goal

• General goal: “Lose 20 pounds”
• Behaviors needed: Meal planning, cooking at home, portion control, exercise
• Implementation intentions:
  • If it’s Sunday at 10 AM, then I will plan meals for the week and make a grocery list
  • If I arrive home from work, then I will cook the meal I planned before doing anything else
  • If I’m choosing a restaurant, then I will look at the menu online first and decide what to order
  • If it’s 6 AM on Monday/Wednesday/Friday, then I will put on my workout clothes and go to the gym

Notice the specificity. Not “I’ll meal plan on weekends” but “Sunday at 10 AM.” Not “I’ll cook more” but “when I arrive home from work.” The more specific the situation, the more automatic the behavior becomes [2].

Create 3-7 implementation intentions per goal. More than that becomes hard to remember. Fewer than that leaves too many decisions to daily willpower.

Step 3: Run the WOOP Process

Now prepare for obstacles using the WOOP framework:

Wish: State your goal clearly. Be specific about what success looks like.

Outcome: Spend 2-3 minutes imagining the best possible result. How will achieving this goal change your life? What will you feel? What new opportunities will open? Let yourself feel the positive emotions.

Obstacle: Identify the internal obstacle most likely to derail you. Not external circumstances (“lack of time”) but internal responses (“feeling tired,” “getting distracted,” “discomfort”). Research shows internal obstacles predict failure more reliably than external ones [4].

Plan: Create an if-then plan specifically for your obstacle. If [obstacle appears], then I will [planned response].

Example WOOP for learning Spanish:

• Wish: Reach conversational fluency in Spanish within one year
• Outcome: Confidently ordering food in Spanish when I travel to Mexico, connecting with Spanish-speaking colleagues, feeling proud of sticking with something difficult
• Obstacle: After work, I feel mentally exhausted and choose passive entertainment over language study
• Plan: If I feel too tired for formal study after work, then I will watch one episode of a Spanish TV show with subtitles or listen to a Spanish podcast during my evening walk

The plan maintains progress even when the obstacle appears. You’re not abandoning the goal when tired, you’re adapting the behavior to fit your current state.

Step 4: Install a Commitment Device

Choose a commitment device that matches your abandonment pattern and feels appropriately uncomfortable (but not so costly you’ll avoid the whole system).

Commitment Device Type	Example	Best For	Cost if You Quit
Financial stake	Beeminder, StickK	Excuse accumulators	Money (set your own amount)
Public accountability	Weekly progress posts on social media	Enthusiasm crashes	Social embarrassment
Social contract	Meeting a friend for workouts	Procrastination faders	Letting someone down
Environmental design	Deleting distracting apps, meal prep	Decision fatigue	Inconvenience to access temptation
Irreversible investment	Annual gym membership, course with no refund	All-or-nothing quitters	Wasted money (sunk cost)

The commitment device should feel slightly uncomfortable but not punishing. If the cost is too high, you’ll avoid setting it up. If it’s too low, it won’t influence behavior when temptation appears. A good test: it should make you slightly nervous, but you should still be willing to do it.

Step 5: Build Your Accountability Structure

Accountability doesn’t mean daily check-ins with a coach (unless that works for you). It means creating regular touchpoints where you review progress and adjust the system.

Options for different personalities:

• External accountability: Accountability partner, coach, or group
• Self-tracking: Weekly review session where you log progress
• Environmental cues: Visual progress tracker (calendar, chart)
• Technology: Apps with reminders and progress tracking

Research shows that monitoring itself improves goal achievement, even without external consequences [12]. The act of tracking makes you more aware of your behavior. When you log “0 workouts this week,” you face the gap between intention and action. That awareness often drives course correction.

Set a specific time for accountability. “If it’s Friday at 5 PM, then I will review my goal progress for the week and plan adjustments for next week.” Make the review a behavior with its own implementation intention.

Step 6: Front-Load the Planning Work

This is the step most people skip, and it’s why most goals fail. You need to invest time upfront building the system. Two hours of focused planning can save 50+ hours of struggle over the following months.

The time you spend building your follow-through system is the most important work you’ll do toward your goal [13]. Execution becomes easier when the infrastructure is solid. This is why the From Vision to Action program emphasizes front-loaded planning. Most of the work happens before you start pursuing the goal. Then the pursuit itself requires less daily effort.

Block 2-3 hours for this process:

Hour 1: Foundation Building

• Write your goal using the WOOP framework (Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan)
• Identify all behaviors required to achieve the goal
• Create 3-7 implementation intentions covering the most important behaviors
• Be specific about situations: not “Monday mornings” but “Monday at 6:30 AM after my alarm”

Hour 2: Protection and Accountability

• Choose and install one commitment device that matches your abandonment pattern
• Set up your accountability structure (partner, tracking system, or review schedule)
• Create your tracking method (app, spreadsheet, or paper log)
• Schedule your first accountability check-in

Hour 3: Contingency Planning

• Anticipate 5-7 scenarios that could disrupt your plan (travel, illness, busy weeks, unexpected events)
• Create if-then plans for each scenario: “If I’m traveling for work, then I will…”
• Build in flexibility without abandoning the goal: modified behaviors, not zero behaviors
• Document everything in one place (notebook, digital file, or workbook)

This three-hour investment might feel excessive. Most goal-setting takes 10-15 minutes. But that brevity is exactly why goals fail. You’re trading three hours now for months of easier execution later. The calculation favors front-loading.

Common Mistakes That Cause Goal Abandonment

Even with a good system, certain mistakes reliably lead to abandonment. Recognizing these as system errors (not personal failures) helps you fix them quickly.

Mistake 1: Setting Too Many Goals at Once

Research shows that pursuing multiple goals simultaneously leads to goal competition and reduced achievement [14]. Each goal requires willpower, attention, and time. When you try to transform your entire life at once (exercise more AND eat better AND learn a language AND save money), you overwhelm your capacity for change.

Better approach: Focus on 1-3 goals maximum. Sequence major changes rather than pursuing them simultaneously. Master one behavior before adding another.

Mistake 2: Relying on Motivation Instead of Systems

Motivation is unreliable. It spikes after reading inspiring content or setting a new goal, then fades within days. Studies on self-regulation show that willpower and self-control deplete throughout the day and replenish slowly [8]. Relying on motivation means hoping your future self will feel energized and focused every time action is required. That’s not realistic.

Better approach: Build systems that work regardless of motivation. Implementation intentions, commitment devices, and environmental design reduce dependence on daily motivation. When you design systems that help you follow through on goals automatically, you’re no longer fighting willpower battles every day.

Mistake 3: Not Planning for Obstacles

The planning fallacy describes our tendency to underestimate how long tasks will take and how many obstacles will appear [7]. People consistently overestimate their future resources (time, energy, motivation) and underestimate complications. When obstacles inevitably appear, they feel like unexpected failures rather than predictable parts of the process.

Better approach: Assume obstacles will occur. Use WOOP to identify likely obstacles and create contingency plans. When an obstacle appears, you execute a plan rather than improvising under stress.

Mistake 4: Vague Implementation Plans

“I’ll exercise more” or “I’ll study Spanish” are intentions, not plans. They lack the specificity needed for action. Research on implementation intentions shows that specificity about when, where, and how dramatically improves follow-through [2].

Better approach: Every behavior needs a specific trigger. Replace “I’ll exercise more” with “If it’s 6:30 AM on weekdays, then I will put on running shoes and run my 3-mile loop.”

Mistake 5: No Accountability Structure

Without accountability, it’s easy to quietly quit. You stop doing the behavior, feel briefly guilty, then move on. No one notices. There’s no cost to abandonment. Research shows that public commitment and monitoring significantly increase goal persistence [12].

Better approach: Install at least one form of accountability, a partner, public commitment, or self-tracking with regular review. Make abandonment visible rather than invisible.

Mistake	Why It Happens	Fix
Too many goals	Enthusiasm at start, underestimating resource demands	Limit to 1-3 goals, sequence major changes
Relying on motivation	Motivation feels reliable when high	Build systems that work when motivation is low
Ignoring obstacles	Planning fallacy, optimism bias	Use WOOP to identify and plan for obstacles
Vague plans	Confusing intentions with execution plans	Create specific implementation intentions
No accountability	Abandonment is private and cost-free	Public commitment, partner, or tracking

How to Know If You’re Ready for the From Vision to Action Program

The From Vision to Action Life Goal Program works best for specific types of people in specific situations. It’s not a universal solution. Here’s how to know if it’s right for you.

You’re a good fit if you:

• Have abandoned multiple goals in the past and recognize it’s a pattern
• Understand you need execution systems to follow through on goals, not more motivation or inspiration
• Are willing to invest 2-3 hours upfront in planning and system-building
• Want an evidence-based approach grounded in psychology research
• Prefer structured frameworks over spontaneous or flexible approaches
• Struggle with the gap between knowing what to do and actually doing it

You’re probably not a good fit if you:

• Haven’t tried basic goal-setting frameworks yet (start with simpler methods first)
• Are looking for a quick hack or magic solution
• Won’t commit to the upfront planning phase (the system requires initial investment)
• Prefer highly flexible, intuitive approaches without structure
• Need external accountability but aren’t willing to install commitment devices

The program works because it combines multiple evidence-based frameworks. But that means it requires more upfront work than simpler approaches. If you’re not ready for that investment, start with one framework (like implementation intentions) and add others later. Learn more about the From Vision to Action Life Goal Program to see if the structure matches your needs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion

Goal abandonment isn’t a character flaw or a willpower problem. It’s a predictable outcome of pursuing goals without addressing the psychological barriers that lead to quitting. When you set goals without implementation plans, without obstacle preparation, and without protection against future-self discounting, failure is likely. The research on how to follow through on goals is clear: you need execution systems, not just motivation or clarity about outcomes.

The three frameworks work because each targets a different failure point. Implementation intentions automate cue detection and reduce daily decision-making. WOOP prepares you for obstacles before they occur. Commitment devices make abandonment costly rather than free. Together, whether you use the From Vision to Action Life Goal Program or build your own integrated system, they create multiple lines of defense against the moment when quitting feels easier than continuing.

You’re not broken. Your system is incomplete. The difference between people who follow through and people who abandon goals isn’t discipline or motivation. It’s the infrastructure they build around their goals. Build better infrastructure. The follow-through gets easier.

Next 10 Minutes

• Identify your primary abandonment pattern from the five patterns described
• Write one implementation intention for your current goal using the if-then format
• Choose one commitment device that makes you slightly uncomfortable

This Week

References

1. Norcross, J. C., Mrykalo, M. S., & Blagys, M. D. (2002). Auld lang Syne: Success predictors, change processes, and self-reported outcomes of New Year’s resolvers and nonresolvers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(4), 397-405.

2. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119.

3. Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention-behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503-518.

4. Oettingen, G. (2014). Rethinking Positive Thinking: Inside the New Science of Motivation. Current.

5. Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2, 671-698.

6. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

7. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366-381.

8. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259.

9. Hershfield, H. E. (2011). Future self-continuity: How conceptions of the future self transform intertemporal choice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235, 30-43.

10. Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.

11. Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M. P., Cane, J., & Wood, C. E. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46(1), 81-95.

12. Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198-229.

13. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.

14. Riediger, M., & Freund, A. M. (2004). Interference and facilitation among personal goals: Differential associations with subjective well-being and persistent goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1511-1523.

15. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998-1009.