Implementation intentions (if-then plans; Gollwitzer, 1999) improve self-control by automating goal-directed behavior. However, the effectiveness of these plans may depend critically on how they instruct individuals to mentally represent tempting stimuli. We investigate whether if-then plans using different mental representation strategies;modal (concrete, sensory) versus amodal (abstract, distant) have opposite effects on food-related inhibitory control. Based on Grounded Cognition Theory and Construal Level Theory, we predict that modal if-then plans instructing concrete sensory engagement will inadvertently strengthen food temptation, while amodal if-then plans instructing abstract psychological distancing will reduce temptation and facilitate inhibition. We will conduct a pre-registered randomized experiment (N = 159) with three conditions: (1) Control (no strategy), (2)Modal if-then plan:If I see a food image, then I will mentally bring it closer, look, smell, and imagine eating it,(3) Amodal if-then plan:If I see a food image, then I will mentally push it as far away as possible until it disappears from sight.Participants complete a Stop-Signal Task measuring response inhibition (SSRT) for high-calorie food and neutral images. Data collection is scheduled to begin November 2025 via Prolific and University of Tübingen participant pool. We predict amodal if-then plans will produce better inhibition than control,while modal if-then plans will produce worse inhibition,specifically for food stimuli.Building on previous work demonstrating the effectiveness of implementation intentions for self-control, this research tests whether implementation intentions using amodal mental representations can serve as practical cognitive intervention tools for people with eating problems and eating disorders. Results will be fully analysed and available for presentation.