人们常拥有目标，但难以行动。执行意向作为一种能改善行动表现（行动发起、行动持续、行动抑制、行动脱离）的自我调节策略得到了越来越多的关注。然而，执行意向对行动表现的作用在不同研究间、不同个体间存在差异（效应量大小不同）。造成这种差异的原因可能是执行意向对行动表现的作用受到某些因素的调节。然而，学界对调节执行意向的作用的因素知之甚少。本研究根据行动阶段理论认为执行心态与思虑心态会调节或制约执行意向的作用。以往考察执行心态与思虑心态对执行意向的调节作用的少量研究大都使用操纵实验的研究范式，然而，这些方法得出的结论是否适用于日常生活情境却不得而知。本研究试图考察日常生活情境中的执行意向对行动表现的影响，验证并扩展前人研究，并使用正念干预的方式，检验正念对执行心态的增强作用、对思虑心态的削弱作用。

研究1通过横断调查（个体间变异的视角）考察执行意向、执行心态、思虑心态、正念与行动表现的关系（n = 226）。研究1发现执行意向与行动发起、行动脱离、行动表现（总量表）的关系受到执行心态的调节，执行心态的水平越高，执行意向与行动发起、行动脱离、行动表现（总量表）的正向关系越强。执行意向与行动发起的关系受到思虑心态的调节，思虑心态的水平越低，执行意向与行动发起的正向关系越强。另外，正念与执行心态呈正相关，与思虑心态呈负相关。

研究2采用了生态效度更高的经验取样法（个体内变异的视角）在具体的现实生活情境中考察了上述变量之间的关系（n = 216）。结果表明：在个体内水平，随着状态思虑心态水平的降低，状态行动表现的平均水平逐渐升高，计划（本研究将其作为执行意向的近似指标）正向预测状态行动表现的斜率逐渐升高。与此相似，随着状态思虑心态水平的降低，状态行动表现的平均水平逐渐升高，执行意向（前测）对状态行动表现的正向预测作用逐渐增强。就状态执行心态对执行意向（前测）的调节作用而言，随着状态执行心态水平的升高，状态行动表现的平均水平逐渐升高，但执行意向（前测）对状态行动表现的正向预测作用逐渐减弱。另外，状态正念与状态执行心态呈正相关，与状态思虑心态呈负相关。

研究1与研究2验证了变量间的关系，为研究3、研究4的干预研究奠定了基础。研究3对执行意向进行干预，考察执行意向对行动表现的因果效应，并检验执行心态、思虑心态对执行意向干预的有效性的调节作用。研究3（n = 84）采用积极对照设计，对照组接受普通计划的指导，干预组接受执行意向干预。研究3采用经验取样法对被试接受干预后一周内现实生活情境中的状态行动表现进行评估。本研究发现当状态执行心态水平较低或状态思虑心态水平较高时，执行意向干预组的状态行动表现得分显著高于对照组。本研究表明，当状态执行心态水平较高或状态思虑心态水平较低时，普通计划组与执行意向组的状态行动表现都较好，但当状态执行心态水平较低或状态思虑心态水平较高时，相较于普通计划组，执行意向干预组的状态行动表现的水平更高。另外，本研究发现执行意向干预组一周后的执行意向（后测）、行动发起（后测）的水平显著高于对照组。

研究1至研究3验证了正念与执行心态、思虑心态的相关关系，研究4旨在通过正念干预检验正念对执行心态、思虑心态的因果效应，检验通过正念干预增强执行心态、削弱思虑心态的可行性。研究4（n = 93）采用积极对照设计（以想象放松为对照）进行正念干预，并采用经验取样法对干预后一周内被试现实生活情境中的表现进行评估。结果显示正念干预组的状态正念的水平显著高于对照组，状态思虑心态的水平显著低于对照组。该结果表明，正念干预显著提高了状态正念，显著降低了状态思虑心态。另外，当状态执行心态水平较高或状态思虑心态水平较低时，执行意向（前测）、计划正向预测状态行动表现的作用更强。最后，状态正念与状态行动表现呈正相关。

本研究根据行动阶段理论，验证了在日常生活与干预研究中执行心态、思虑心态对执行意向与行动表现（行动发起，行动持续，行动抑制，行动脱离）的关系的调节作用，揭示了正念与执行心态、思虑心态的关系，验证了通过正念干预增强执行心态、削弱思虑心态这一方案的可行性，具有一定的理论贡献与应用价值。本研究增进了学界对执行意向有效性的调节因素的认识，进一步澄清了执行心态、思虑心态对执行意向的调节作用，提出并验证了通过正念干预执行心态、思虑心态的方案，为完善执行意向干预方案、增强执行意向干预的有效性、拓展执行意向干预技术的应用作出了贡献。

People often have goals but have difficulties in acting. Implementation intention is an effortless and efficient self-regulation strategy that can improve action performance (i.e., action initiation, action continuation, action inhibition, action disengagement). However, the effectiveness of implementation intention varies across studies and among individuals. The reasons for such variation may be that the influence of implementation intention on action performance is moderated by some factors. However, less is known about such factors that moderate implementation intention’s effectiveness. According to the Action Phases Theory, implemental and deliberative mindset may moderate the effect of implementation intention on action performance in daily life and intervention. However, only few studies examined such moderating effects using experimental manipulations. Findings of these experimental studies may not apply to daily life. This research aims to extend previous research by examining the effectiveness of implementation intention in daily life. In addition, this research posed and examined the approach of enhancing implemental mindset and weakening deliberative mindset through mindfulness intervention.

Study 1 aimed to examine the relationships among implementation intention, implemental mindset, deliberative mindset, mindfulness, and action performance through cross-sectional studies (from the perspective of interpersonal variation; n = 226). Study 1 found that the relationship between implementation intention and action initiation, action disengagement, and action performance (total scale) was moderated by implemental mindset. When the level of implemental mindset was higher, the positive relation between implementation intention and action initiation, action disengagement, and action performance (total scale) was stronger. The relationship between implementation intention and action initiation was moderated by deliberative mindset. As the level of deliberative mindset decreased, the positive relation between deliberative intention and action initiation got stronger. Moreover, mindfulness was correlated positively with implemental mindset and negatively with deliberative mindset.

Study 2 (n = 216) used an experience sampling design (from the perspective of intrapersonal variation) to examine the hypothesized relationships in real-life situations. Study 2 found that as the level of state deliberative mindset decreased, the average level of state action performance increased, and the slope of planning positively predicting state action performance increased. Similarly, as the level of state deliberative mindset decreased, the average level of state action performance increased, and the slope of implementation intention (pretest) positively predicting state action performance increased. However, as the level of state implemental mindset increased, the average level of state action performance increased, but the slope of implementation intention (pretest) positively predicting state action performance decreased. In addition, state mindfulness was correlated positively with state implemental mindset and negatively with state deliberative mindset.

Study 1 and Study 2 laid the foundation for the following intervention studies. Study 3 administered implementation intention intervention to examine the causal effect of implementation intention on action performance, and also to examine whether the effectiveness of the implementation intention intervention is moderated by the implemental mindset or deliberative mindset. Study 3 (n = 84) adopted an active control design using the usual plan as the control condition for implementation intention. Study 3 used experience sampling to evaluate subjects' performance in real-life situations after the intervention for 7 days. The results showed that when the level of state implemental mindset was low or the level of state deliberative mindset was high, the state action performance of the implementation intention group was higher than the control group. These results suggested that when state implemental mindset was high or the state deliberative mindset was low, the state action performance of the control group and the implementation intention group were both high; but when the state implemental mindset was low or the state deliberative mindset was high, the state action performance of the implementation intention group was higher than that of the control group. One week later, the implementation intention (posttest) and action initiation (posttest) of the implementation intention group were significantly higher than those of the control group.

Study 1 to Study 3 demonstrated the correlational relations between mindfulness and implemental mindset, as well as correlational relations between mindfulness and deliberative mindset. Study 4 (n = 93) aimed to investigate the causal effect of mindfulness intervention on implemental mindset and deliberative mindset, and examine the feasibility of strengthening implemental mindset and weakening deliberative mindset through mindfulness intervention. Study 4 adopted an active control design using imaginary relaxation as a control condition for mindfulness intervention, and used experience sampling to evaluate the performance of the subjects in real-life situations after the intervention for 7 days. The results showed that, compared with the control group, mindfulness intervention significantly improved state mindfulness and reduced state deliberative mindset. The slope of implementation intention (pretest) or plan (experience sampling) positively predicting state action performance was higher when the state implemental mindset was higher or the state deliberative mindset was lower. In addition, state mindfulness was positively related to state action performance.

Based on the Action Phases Theory, this research demonstrated the moderating effects of implemental and deliberative mindset on the relationship between implementation intention and action performance (action initiation, action continuation, action inhibition, and action disengagement) in daily life and intervention from interpersonal and intrapersonal perspectives. The hypothesized relationships were generally supported by the findings. The mindfulness intervention was found to effectively weaken deliberative mindset and thereby improve action performance. This research has some theoretical contributions and practical implications. This research adds knowledge to the moderating/restrictive factors of implementation intention, clarifies the role of implemental and deliberative mindset, proposes and demonstrates the approach of intervening implemental and deliberative mindset through mindfulness. This research contributes to improving the implementation intention intervention, enhancing its effectiveness, and extending its application.