ABSTRACT: Research suggests that acting more extraverted (outgoing, assertive, and/or energetic) boosts subjective well‐being in the short term for most people; however, some work indicates that acting more extraverted could be aversive for those who are relatively more introverted. To further understand participants' experiences in extraverted behavior interventions, we analyzed free‐response data from a study in which undergraduate participants generated ideas on desirable outcomes, anticipated obstacles, and prospective plans in their efforts to act more sociable. Additionally, to understand the potential relationship between components of person‐activity fit (how natural, enjoyable, and meaningful a person finds an intervention activity like acting more extraverted), we conducted exploratory correlational analyses between the components of fit, personality traits, desire to change extraversion, and the endorsement of outcomes, challenges, and plans identified from our thematic qualitative analysis. Our results suggest four main takeaways: (a) dispositional and situational shyness are highly prevalent challenges that bear on behavioral efforts to act more sociable; (b) lack of specificity in participant‐generated plans to act more sociable and their focus on thoughts and feelings instead of actionable behavior may inhibit desired behavior change; (c) participants' sense that their own personality serves as a barrier to desired change is negatively related to how natural, enjoyable, and meaningful they rate the intervention; and (d) more agreeable participants rate the intervention as more enjoyable and meaningful. We close by offering theoretical and practical recommendations for future research and interventions focused on fostering extraverted behaviors.

The current article details a position statement and recommendations for future research and practice on planning and implementation intentions in health contexts endorsed by the Synergy Expert Group. The group comprised world-leading researchers in health and social psychology and behavioural medicine who convened to discuss priority issues in planning interventions in health contexts and develop a set of recommendations for future research and practice. The expert group adopted a nominal groups approach and voting system to elicit and structure priority issues in planning interventions and implementation intentions research. Forty-two priority issues identified in initial discussions were further condensed to 18 key issues, including definitions of planning and implementation intentions and 17 priority research areas. Each issue was subjected to voting for consensus among group members and formed the basis of the position statement and recommendations. Specifically, the expert group endorsed statements and recommendations in the following areas: generic definition of planning and specific definition of implementation intentions, recommendations for better testing of mechanisms, guidance on testing the effects of moderators of planning interventions, recommendations on the social aspects of planning interventions, identification of the preconditions that moderate effectiveness of planning interventions and recommendations for research on how people use plans.