Ariane Bélanger-Gravel

Ariane Bélanger-Gravel

Ariane Bélanger-Gravel is a health behaviour researcher at Université Laval and the first author of the meta-analysis that gives implementation intentions their real effect size in physical activity. Her 2013 review in Health Psychology Review, with Gaston Godin and Steve Amireault, puts if-then planning at Hedges' g = 0.31, 95 per cent CI 0.11 to 0.51, at post-intervention, and g = 0.24, 95 per cent CI 0.13 to 0.35, at follow-up. That is roughly half the d = .65 that circulates from the general literature, and the follow-up figure is the one an adherence argument has to use.

Who they are

Her page exists to hold the domain-specific number. Peter Gollwitzer and Paschal Sheeran established in 2006, across 94 independent tests, that forming an if-then plan raises goal attainment at d = .65, medium to large, across all domains. That figure is real and it is correct for what it measures. Quoting it for an exercise claim overstates the effect by roughly a factor of two, and that misuse is common enough to be worth a standing correction.

The drop between the two of her own figures is itself the finding. Post-intervention 0.31, follow-up 0.24. Planning effects on physical activity are modest and they decay, which is exactly the shape an argument about long-term adherence has to reckon with rather than around.

Her given name was confirmed on 11 September 2026. "Ariane" had been inferred from the citation "Bélanger-Gravel, A." and is now confirmed against the Health Psychology Review record, with Godin and Amireault as co-authors, all at Université Laval. The journal volume is 7(1), 23 to 54; one secondary source gives the volume without the issue.

Key papers

Bélanger-Gravel, A., Godin, G., & Amireault, S. (2013). "A meta-analytic review of the effect of implementation intentions on physical activity", Health Psychology Review, 7(1), 23 to 54. First author. doi:10.1080/17437199.2011.560095. g = 0.31 (CI 0.11 to 0.51) post-intervention; g = 0.24 (CI 0.13 to 0.35) at follow-up.

Key ideas

Name which estimate you are quoting. d = .65 is goal attainment across all domains. g = 0.24 to 0.31 is physical activity. They are not rival findings about the same thing, and using the first for the second is the error.

Planning effects decay. Whatever an if-then plan does at the end of a trial, it does less of six months later.

Both sides, then the line. Against a small figure: implementation intentions are among the best-evidenced behaviour-change techniques anywhere, and 0.24 at follow-up on a behaviour as stubborn as exercise is not nothing. For it: the general number has escaped its domain and is quoted for exercise constantly. We land with hers. When the claim is about physical activity, the physical activity meta-analysis is the citation.

An externally imposed fixture is not an implementation intention. Gollwitzer tested self-generated if-then plans. A fixed team training time is imposed structure, arguably a better instrument, and not the construct that was measured. It should stay an analogy.

Concepts on this site

Implementation Intentions, where her number belongs

Exercise Adherence, the domain it applies to

Friction, the adjacent account of what a plan removes

Sources

  1. Bélanger-Gravel, A., Godin, G., & Amireault, S. (2013). Health Psychology Review, 7(1), 23 to 54.
  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 to 119. 94 independent tests, d = .65.
  3. Vault verification record, 2026-09-11. Both effect sizes confirmed, given name confirmed, volume recorded as 7(1).