Psychology HW

Article

For Better or for Worse? Outsourcing Self-Regulation and Goal Pursuit

Julia L. Briskin1, Catalina E. Kopetz1, Gráinne M. Fitzsimons2, and Richard B. Slatcher1

Abstract

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in how close relationships can impact personal goal pursuit. Extensive research on social support has shown that support often facilitates goal pursuit. However, Fitzsimons and Finkel found that perceived partner support may actually undermine motivation and decrease goal pursuit intentions. In this article, we report three well- powered studies (N ¼ 850) that investigated the conditions under which romantic partners may bolster or undermine goal pursuit. In contrast with the original Fitzsimons and Finkel’s findings, the results of these studies consistently showed that per- ceived partner support bolsters goal pursuit intentions by increasing goal commitment. Implications for successful goal pursuit in the context of relationships are discussed.

Keywords

interpersonal relationships, self-regulation, goal pursuit, social support

“There are people who, the more you do for them, the less they will

do for themselves.”

Jane Austen (2016, p. 699)

“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.”

Helen Keller

The sentiments on goal pursuit put forth by Austen and Keller

differ, and their ideas reflect an important question: Do close

others help or hinder goal pursuit? Whereas Austen implies that

support from others can be demotivating, Keller suggests the

opposite. Abundant evidence from the social support literature

suggests that close others can boost goal attainment (Brunstein,

Dangelmayer, & Schultheiss, 1996; Cohen & Wills, 1985), and

by definition, social support provides people with resources to

pursue their goals (Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000). On

the other hand, relying on others for help may hurt goal pursuit

(Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). In a series of studies,

Fitzsimons and Finkel (2011) found that being reminded that

a close other helps with goal pursuit reduced one’s intentions

to pursue that goal, an effect they called outsourcing self-reg-

ulation. In other words, thinking of how a partner can be help-

ful to one’s goals may lead one to believe “my partner will

take care of that for me, so I don’t have to.” The current

research attempts to address these seemingly conflicting

accounts of interpersonal influences on goal pursuit by

exploring the circumstances under which close others boost

or undermine goal pursuit, as well as the mechanisms under-

lying these relationships.

At any point in time, people have multiple goals (Kruglanski

et al., 2002). People may want to have successful careers but

also enjoy time with friends and family. Despite their desire

to pursue multiple goals, people have limited resources

(Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007; cf. Lurquin et al., 2016) and

may need to rely on others for support. In such instances (e.g.,

low energy after an exhausting day at work), others may serve

as means to one’s goal pursuit (Orehek & Forest, 2016). For

example, if Jill has a partner, Jack, who cooks healthy meals

for her and thus advances her health goals, Jill may be

inclined to invest less time and energy advancing this goal

herself and may choose to conserve her resources for pursuing

her other goals. In line with this notion, Fitzsimons and Finkel

(2011) showed that considering how others would help with

the pursuit of health and fitness goals reduced people’s inten-

tions to expend their own effort to pursue this goal, particu-

larly when their resources were limited (e.g., following a

cognitively demanding task). This is akin to perceived goal

progress whereby a person interprets a partner’s support as

movement toward the goal; when people perceive goal

1 Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

2 Department of Psychology, The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University,

Durham, NC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Julia L. Briskin, Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, 42 W

Warren Ave., Detroit, MI 48202, USA.

Email: julia.briskin@wayne.edu

Social Psychological and Personality Science 1-12 ª The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1948550617736112 journals.sagepub.com/home/spp

progress, they may be inclined to switch their focus to pursue

other goals (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005). In other words, even if

Jill remains committed to the health goal that her partner

serves, Jack’s support may be interpreted as health goal prog-

ress and may prompt Jill to switch to pursuing other goals

rather than persevering on the same goal.

On the other hand, remembering that one can rely on others

to advance one’s goals may be perceived as goal commitment

rather than goal progress and may prompt continued pursuit

of the same goal (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005). Indeed, the social

support literature suggests that in some cases, support from

close others to achieve a goal may boost self-efficacy (Ander-

son, Winett, & Wojcik, 2007), leading one to feel more

equipped to achieve a goal, which may in turn facilitate goal

pursuit. For instance, if Jack cooks healthy dinners (advancing

Jill’s health goals), Jill may feel more committed to reaching

her health goals, because the goal seems more attainable.

The above analysis suggests that the same action (a partner’s

help or support) could be interpreted as goal progress or goal

commitment. While perceived goal progress may result in sub-

sequent actions inconsistent with the goal, perceived goal com-

mitment should prompt subsequent actions consistent with the

goal. In the current studies, we specifically focused on the

effects of perceived partner support on goal commitment and

intentions to pursue a goal.

An important factor that can influence the way a partner’s

support is perceived is the type of support provided. One may

perceive a partner as providing esteem-related, validating sup-

port (emotional support); alternatively, one may perceive a

partner as providing tangible, concrete help (instrumental sup-

port; Semmer et al., 2008). The type of partner support and its

possible effects on goal pursuit are unclear. For instance,

whereas instrumental support may be substitutable for personal

effort and may thus decrease goal pursuit intentions (Fitzsi-

mons & Finkel, 2011), emotional support may not be as

directly substitutable. However, research on physical activity

shows the opposite pattern; instrumental support significantly

increased physical activity over a 19-week intervention (Sicel-

off, Wilson, & Horn, 2013), suggesting that instrumental sup-

port may be especially important for increasing goal

commitment and therefore the likelihood of goal attainment.

The present research attempts to reconcile prior outsourcing

self-regulation findings (suggesting that thinking about support

from others may hinder individual goal pursuit) with extensive

social support research suggesting that relying on others bol-

sters goal pursuit. In three well-powered studies, we methodo-

logically replicated the research conducted by Fitzsimons and

Finkel (2011). Additionally, we explored the role of goal com-

mitment (Studies 1–3) and the ways that specific types of social

support may influence goal pursuit intentions (Study 3).

According to the findings from the original outsourcing

study (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2011), one would expect that par-

ticipants prompted to think of how a partner helps with their

health and fitness goals (vs. career goals) would plan to spend

less time and effort on health and fitness goals in the upcoming

week. Furthermore, this effect should be particularly strong

when participants’ cognitive resources are low. This might be

the case because a person whose resources are depleted would

be less likely to invest in goal pursuit, especially when that par-

ticular goal could be attained with the help of others. However,

the social support literature suggests the opposite pattern of

findings might be expected: Perceiving one’s partner as instru-

mental to one’s health and fitness goals (vs. career goals)

should increase goal pursuit intentions, and this effect should

be particularly strong when cognitive resources are low. This

may be the case because feeling depleted should decrease the

expectancy of goal attainment; in such circumstances, a sup-

portive partner may alleviate this effect.

Study 1

We aimed to test the effect of perceived partner instrumentality

on goal pursuit intentions and the extent to which individuals’

limited resources may exacerbate this effect. Furthermore, we

aimed to explore the mediating role of goal commitment. In

order to do so, we employed a 2 � 2 design, with partner instru- mentality (high vs. control) and resources (low vs. control) as

between-subjects factors.

Method

Study 1 was a direct replication of Study 1 from the original

Fitzsimons and Finkel’s (2011) paper and was preregistered

with the Open Science Framework. Two hundred sixty-three

female participants in committed romantic relationships were

recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Guidelines for

direct replication studies suggest an estimate of at least 95% power to detect anticipated effects (a ¼ .05). Based on a com- putation of the effect size achieved in the original outsourcing

study (f ¼ .585), we sought to be conservative and thus opted for an effect size that was slightly less than half of the effect

size in the original study (f ¼ .25). For Study 1, based on cal- culations using G*Power software (Version 3.1; estimated

effect size f ¼ .25, numerator df ¼ 1, and number of groups ¼ 4), the minimum total participants needed were 210. In order to be certain that there would be enough power to detect effects

after data screening, a total of 263 participants were recruited.

Of the 263 participants recruited, 7 participants were male

and 46 participants did not follow the study instructions (either

they did not write down one way their partner helps with a

health and fitness goal and/or they failed to complete the

resource depletion manipulation as instructed); thus, those par-

ticipants were excluded from analyses. A total of 210 partici-

pants were analyzed for Study 1 (N ¼ 210, all female, mean age ¼ 35.03, SD ¼ 11.38; see Table 1). Only women were recruited for the study, consistent with the original Fitzsimons

and Finkel’s (2011) study.

Procedure

Consistent with the procedures followed by Fitzsimons and

Finkel (2011), people were recruited for a study investigating

2 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

interpersonal relationships and goals. The survey contained

very brief prescreening questions as eligibility criteria (i.e., are

you in a committed romantic relationship?) that only allowed

participants to continue if the answer was “yes.” Eligible parti-

cipants first underwent a task designed to manipulate cognitive

resources. Specifically, participants either retyped a paragraph

“skipping all vowels that come two letters after another vowel”

(low resource condition) or participants retyped the same para-

graph with the instructions to “skip all vowels” (control

resources condition).

To manipulate partner instrumentality, participants were

asked to provide an example of how their partner helps with

their health and fitness goals (high instrumentality condition)

or to provide an example of how their partner helps with an

alternative, career goal (control condition). Participants then

reported their intentions to pursue their health and fitness

goals in the upcoming week, which was the dependent vari-

able of interest. Specifically, participants rated the amount

of time and effort they planned to spend on health and fitness

in the upcoming week (1 ¼ much less than usual to 5 ¼ much more than usual). The answers on the two questions were

highly correlated (r ¼ .885, p < .001) and were therefore averaged and used as an indicator of participants’ goal pur-

suit intentions.

To assess goal commitment, participants rated goal impor-

tance (“My health and fitness are important to me”) and how

much they cared about goal progress (“I care about my progress

on my health and fitness goals”) on a 1–7 scale (1 ¼ I com- pletely disagree to 7 ¼ I completely agree; r ¼ .912, p < .001). The average score on these 2 items was used as an indi-

cator of goal commitment. Finally, participants provided

demographic information.

Results

Using SPSS version 24, a two-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was conducted to test the effect of partner instru-

mentality (high vs. control) and resources (low vs. control)

on goal pursuit intentions; results are displayed in Table 2.

Similar to Fitzsimons and Finkel’s (2011) findings, there was

no main effect of resources on goal pursuit intentions. There

was a significant main effect of partner instrumentality on goal

pursuit intentions; specifically, participants planned to spend

more time and effort on their health and fitness goals when they

perceived their partner as instrumental to these goals compared

to the alternative career goals (see Table 3).

The analysis also revealed a significant interaction

between partner instrumentality and resources (see

Figure 1a). Simple effects analysis showed that the effect

of partner instrumentality on goal pursuit intentions was only

significant in the low resources condition and not in the con-

trol resources condition; participants planned to spend signif-

icantly more time and effort on health and fitness goals when

they had considered how their partner was instrumental to

these goals (vs. the alternative career goal), but only in the

low resources condition. Within the control resources condi-

tion, there was no difference in planned time and effort to

pursue the health and fitness goal as a function of partner

instrumentality (see Table 3).

A second ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of

partner instrumentality on goal commitment (see Table 2 and

Figure 1b); specifically, participants who were led to perceive

their partner as instrumental to their health and fitness goals

reported higher commitment to these goals than participants

who perceived their partner as instrumental to the alternative

career goal. However, this effect was not moderated by

resources (see Table 2 and Figure 1b).

These results contrast with the findings of Fitzsimons and

Finkel (2011) who did not find an effect of perceived partner

instrumentality on goal commitment. However, they are in line

with the social support literature, which suggests that perceived

partner instrumentality (i.e., support) may boost one’s expec-

tancy for goal attainment and thus goal commitment, which

in turn may increase goal pursuit intentions. To test this possi-

bility directly, we conducted a mediated moderation analysis

using the PROCESS macro (Model 5) in SPSS with 10,000

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Study Variables.

Variables

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

N ¼ 210 N ¼ 337 N ¼ 303

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Relationship length (years) N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.98 8.71 Age 35.03 11.38 32.17 9.52 35.19 10.66 Gender (% female) 100% N/A 100% N/A 56.40% N/A Race/ethnicity (%)

White/Caucasian 74.30% N/A 76.90% N/A 79.90% N/A Black/African American 9.00% N/A 6.50% N/A 7.60% N/A East Asian 4.80% N/A 6.50% N/A 6.60% N/A Middle Eastern 0.00% N/A 0.60% N/A 0.00% N/A Hispanic 6.70% N/A 4.50% N/A 3.60% N/A Native American 1.00% N/A 1.20% N/A 1.00% N/A Multiracial 4.30% N/A 3.90% N/A 1.30% N/A

Briskin et al. 3

bootstrapped samples (Hayes, 2013). The analysis revealed that

the effect of perceived partner instrumentality on goal pursuit

intentions was indeed mediated by goal commitment as sug-

gested by a significant indirect effect. Specifically, perceiving

one’s partner as instrumental to one’s health and fitness goals

(vs. career goal) increased commitment to health and fitness

goals, which in turn increased goal pursuit intentions. Partner

instrumentality led to increased goal pursuit intentions only

when cognitive resources were low (see Figure 1c).

The above findings offer preliminary support for the notion

that relying on close others for support may in fact facilitate

rather than reduce goal pursuit intentions. The results are in line

with the social support literature and in contrast to the outsour-

cing findings previously reported by Fitzsimons and Finkel

(2011). To ensure that our Study 1 findings (including the med-

iation analysis of goal commitment) were not spurious, we con-

ducted a rereplication of this study.

Study 2

Method

To guide calculations for an appropriate sample size, a power

analysis was conducted using the effect size from the interac-

tion term of partner instrumentality and resources (f ¼ .19) obtained in Study 1. Using G*Power software (Version 3.1;

estimated effect size of f ¼ .19, numerator df ¼ 1, and number of groups ¼ 4), the minimum total participants needed were 372 in order to achieve 95% power.

A total of 433 female participants in committed romantic

relationships were recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk

to help ensure that we would have the desired power after data

screening. Fourteen participants did not provide an example of

how their partner was instrumental, and 92 participants failed

to complete the resources manipulation as instructed. Thus,

these participants were excluded from analyses, and a priori

Table 2. Analysis of Variance Results for Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Partner Instrumentality and Cognitive Resources in Study 1.

Variables Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Z2p

Dependent Variable (DV): Goal pursuit intentions Partner instrumentality 9.64 1 9.64 11.52 .001** .053** Resources 0.38 1 0.38 0.45 .503 .002 Instrumentality � Resources 6.10 1 6.10 7.29 .008** .034** Error 172.42 206 0.84 Total 2,273.50 210 Corrected total 186.62 209 Simple effects: ResourcesLow 13.61 1 13.61 16.26 .001** .162** Error 172.42 206 0.84 Simple effects: ResourcesControl 0.24 1 0.24 0.28 .597 .002 Error 172.42 206 0.84

Dependent Variable (DV): Goal commitment Partner instrumentality 13.27 1 13.27 7.23 .008** .034** Resources 0.02 1 0.02 0.01 .919 .000 Instrumentality � Resources 6.20 1 6.20 3.38 .068 .016 Error 378.20 206 1.84 Total 6,715.00 210 Corrected total 395.46 209

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3. Means, SDs, SEs, 95% CIs, and Cohen’s d for Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Partner Instrumentality and Cognitive Resources in Study 1.

Variables

High Instrumentality Control Instrumentality

M SD SE 95% CI M SD SE 95% CI Cohen’s d 95% CI for d

DV: Goal pursuit intentions Instrumentality main effect 3.37 1.03 .09 [3.20, 3.55] 2.94 0.80 .09 [2.76, 3.12] .465** [0.190, 0.739] Low resources 3.59 1.02 .14 [3.32, 3.86] 2.81 0.75 .14 [2.54, 3.08] .871** [0.439, 1.30] Control resources 3.16 1.01 .12 [2.93, 3.39] 3.07 0.83 .12 [2.83, 3.31] .098 [�0.261, 0.456]

DV: Goal commitment Instrumentality main effect 5.74 1.24 .13 [5.45, 6.00] 5.23 1.48 .14 [4.96, 5.50] .374** [0.102, 0.647] Low resources 5.92 1.22 .20 [5.52, 6.32] 5.07 1.56 .20 [4.67, 5.47] .607** [0.184, 1.03] Control resources 5.57 1.23 .17 [5.22, 5.89] 5.40 1.41 .18 [5.04, 5.75] .129 [�0.230, 0.488]

Note. CI ¼ confidence interval. *p < .05. **p < .01.

4 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

power was reduced to approximately 93%. A total of 337 par- ticipants were analyzed for Study 2 (N ¼ 337, all female, mean age ¼ 32.17, SD ¼ 9.52; see Table 1).

Procedure

The procedure for Study 2 was identical to Study 1. We pre-

dicted that Study 2 would replicate the findings from Study 1.

Results

A two-way ANOVA was conducted with partner instrumental-

ity (high vs. control) and resources (low vs. control) as

between-subjects factors. Consistent with Study 1, there was

no main effect of resources on goal pursuit intentions. There

was a significant main effect of partner instrumentality on goal

pursuit intentions (see Table 4); participants planned to spend

more time and effort on their health and fitness goals in the

high partner instrumentality condition than in the control part-

ner instrumentality condition, successfully replicating Study 1

findings (see Table 5 and Figure 2a).

The interaction between partner instrumentality and

resources was not significant. Simple effects analysis showed

that the effect of the instrumentality condition on goal pursuit

intentions was significant in both the low resources condition

and in the control resources condition (see Table 4). In both the

low resources condition and the control resources condition,

participants with instrumental partners for the health and

A

B

C Goal

Commitment

Partner Instrumentality

Goal Pursuit Intentions

.46* .36*

-.41

Resources

.44*

Figure 1. (a) Goal pursuit intentions as a function of partner instrumentality (high vs. control) and amount of resources (low vs. control) in Study 1. Participants with instrumental partners planned to pursue their health and fitness goal to a greater extent than those in the control instrumentality condition, especially when resources were low. Error bars are +1 SE. (b) Goal commitment as a function of partner instru- mentality (high vs. control) and amount of resources (low vs. control) in Study 1. Participants with instrumental partners had greater com- mitment to their health and fitness goal than those in the control instrumentality condition. Error bars are +1 SE. (c) The effects of instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions via goal commitment in Study 1. Unstandardized regression coefficients are displayed above; the direct effect of instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions was only significant when cognitive resources were low. The indirect effect of instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions was 0.16 (SE ¼ .07), which was statistically significant, 95% confidence interval [.0358, .3081]. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Briskin et al. 5

fitness goal planned to spend more time and effort on the health

and fitness goal than those in the control instrumentality condi-

tion (see Table 5). Although the moderation results did not

replicate the findings from Study 1, the overall pattern of

effects between the two studies was similar, in that greater part-

ner instrumentality led to increased goal pursuit intentions.

In line with Study 1 findings, a second ANOVA revealed a

significant main effect of partner instrumentality on goal com-

mitment (see Figure 2b). Participants who perceived their part-

ner as instrumental to their health and fitness goals reported

higher commitment to these goals than participants who per-

ceived their partner as instrumental to the alternative career

goal. Similar to Study 1, there was not a significant interaction

between resources and partner instrumentality on goal commit-

ment (see Table 4).

To test the extent to which increased goal commitment is the

mechanism through which partner instrumentality influences

goal pursuit intentions, we conducted a simple mediation anal-

ysis using PROCESS model 4 (Hayes, 2013). This analysis

revealed that the effect of partner instrumentality (high vs. con-

trol) on goal pursuit intentions was indeed mediated by goal

commitment, as suggested by a significant indirect effect.

Thus, greater partner instrumentality led to increased goal com-

mitment, which in turn increased goal pursuit intentions (see

Figure 2c).

Results from Studies 1 and 2 consistently showed that

greater partner instrumentality increased goal pursuit intentions

by increasing goal commitment, in line with research on social

support. Although partner support may be substituted for one’s

own effort and may lead to perceived goal progress, Studies 1

and 2 did not support this idea. Thus, it may have been the case

that participants did not consider their romantic partners as

“means” to the health and fitness goal but rather as sources

of support that increased the likelihood of attaining one’s

Table 4. Analysis of Variance Results for Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Partner Instrumentality and Cognitive Resources in Study 2.

Variables Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Z2p

DV: Goal pursuit intentions Partner instrumentality 5.53 1 5.53 8.42 .004** .025** Resources 1.39 1 1.39 2.11 .147 .006 Instrumentality � Resources 0.18 1 0.18 0.28 .599 .001 Error 218.65 333 0.66 Total 3,664.25 337 Corrected total 225.52 336 Simple effects: ResourcesLow 2.98 1 2.98 4.54 .034* Error 218.65 333 0.66 Simple effects: ResourcesControl 2.622 1 2.62 3.99 .046* Error 218.650 333 0.66

DV: Goal commitment Partner instrumentality 13.98 1 13.98 7.13 .008** .021** Resources 5.30 1 5.30 2.70 .101 .008 Instrumentality � Resources 0.68 1 0.68 0.35 .557 .001 Error 652.86 333 1.96 Total 10,591.50 337 Corrected total 675.82 336

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 5. Means, SDs, SEs, 95% CIs, and Cohen’s d for Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Partner Instrumentality and Cognitive Resources in Study 2.

Variables

High Instrumentality Control Instrumentality

M SD SE 95% CI M SD SE 95% CI Cohen’s d 95% CI for d

DV: Goal pursuit intentions Instrumentality main effect 3.35 0.81 .07 [3.22, 3.48] 3.08 0.81 .07 [2.95, 3.21] .333** [.118, .548] Low resources 3.26 0.76 .08 [3.11, 3.41] 3.04 0.77 .08 [2.88, 3.19] .288* [.021, .555] Control resources 3.44 0.90 .11 [3.23, 3.65] 3.12 0.87 .11 [2.92, 3.33] .362* [�.001, .724]

DV: Goal commitment Instrumentality main effect 5.67 1.29 .11 [5.45, 5.90] 5.25 1.51 .11 [5.03, 5.47] .299** [.084, .514] Low resources 5.59 1.28 .13 [5.33. 5.85] 5.07 1.55 .14 [4.90, 5.34] .366** [.099, .634] Control resources 5.76 1.31 .18 [5.39, 6.12] 5.43 1.43 .18 [5.07, 5.78] .240 [�.120, .601]

Note. CI ¼ confidence interval. *p < .05. **p < .01.

6 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

health and fitness goal. In this way, reminders of helpful part-

ners can thus serve to motivate individuals to work harder in

their own goal pursuit.

Study 3

Given the disconnect between the social support literature and

the original outsourcing findings (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2011)

and in line with goal pursuit literature that suggests the same

action (partner support) can be perceived as goal progress or

goal commitment, with different consequences for goal pursuit

(Fishbach & Dhar, 2005), Study 3 investigated the possibility

that the type of partner support (instrumental vs. emotional)

may influence when partners bolster (vs. undermine) goal pur-

suit. We conducted an experimental study with type of support

(instrumental vs. emotional) and gender (male vs. female) as

the independent variables. Goal commitment and goal pursuit

intentions, operationalized identically to Studies 1 and 2, were

the dependent variables of interest.

In line with social support research suggesting that instru-

mental support is particularly helpful for advancing fitness

goals (Siceloff et al., 2013), we hypothesized that instrumental

support (in which a partner does something concrete to advance

a goal; Cutrona, 1990; Semmer et al., 2008) rather than emo-

tional support (in which a partner expresses validation and

warmth) would be particularly relevant for enhancing one’s

goal pursuit intentions. Furthermore, we expected this effect

to be mediated by goal commitment; specifically, we hypothe-

sized that instrumental (vs. emotional) support would result in

greater goal commitment, which would in turn increase goal

pursuit intentions.

Finally, although Studies 1 and 2 recruited women exclu-

sively, based on the notion that women are socialized to accept

perceived support more so than men (Landman-Peeters et al.,

2005), Study 3 recruited both genders and tested this assump-

tion directly. It may be the case that women are more receptive

to social support provision; women have been shown to draw

social support from more people compared to men, who

A B

C Goal

Commitment

Partner Instrumentality

Goal Pursuit Intentions

.45** .30**

.25**(.12)

Figure 2. (a) Goal pursuit intentions as a function of partner instrumentality (high vs. control) and amount of resources (low vs. control) in Study 2. Participants with instrumental partners planned to pursue their health and fitness goal to a greater extent than those in the control instrumentality condition. Error bars are +1 SE. (b) Goal commitment as a function of partner instrumentality (high vs. control) and amount of resources (low vs. control) in Study 2. Participants with instrumental partners had significantly greater commitment to their health and fitness goal than those in the control instrumentality condition. Error bars are +1 SE. (c) The effects of instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions via goal commitment in Study 2. Unstandardized regression coefficients are displayed above; the direct effect of instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions was no longer significant when goal commitment was included in the model. The indirect effect of instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions was 0.13 (SE ¼ .05), which was statistically significant, 95% confidence interval [.0471, .2389]. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Briskin et al. 7

typically draw support mostly from their romantic partners

(Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010; Srivastava, McGonigal,

Richards, Butler, & Gross, 2006). Thus, we expected that the

mediated effect of support type on goal pursuit intentions

would only hold for women, because of their increased propen-

sity to have and use social support.

Method

Based on calculations using G*Power (Version 3.1; estimated

effect size of f ¼ .20, numerator df ¼ 1, and number of groups ¼ 4), the total participants needed to achieve 90% power were 265. As Study 3 was not a direct replication, we reasoned that

achieving 90% power would be sufficient for detecting an effect. To be certain that enough surveys would be complete for

data analysis, a total of 306 participants in committed relation-

ships were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. How-

ever, three participants failed to give an example of how

their partner was supportive for a health and fitness goal. Thus,

these participants were excluded from analysis. Data from 303

participants were analyzed. Of these, 171 were female, with a

mean age of 35.19 (SD ¼ 10.66; see Table 1).

Procedure

To manipulate the type of support, participants wrote down one

way that their partner was instrumentally supportive of a health

and fitness goal (instrumental partner condition) or one way

that their partner was emotionally supportive of a health and fit-

ness goal (emotional support condition). Specifically, in the

instrumental support condition, participants were instructed

to list an example of how their partner does something concrete

to help them advance their health and fitness goal. In the emo-

tional support condition, participants were instructed to provide

an example of how their partners are emotionally supportive

and say things or discuss their goals with them in a way that

helps advance their health and fitness goals. Subsequently, par-

ticipants rated their goal commitment in a manner identical to

Studies 1 and 2. As in the previous studies, these items were

averaged to create an index of goal commitment (r ¼ .711, p < .001). Finally, to assess intentions to engage in goal pursuit,

participants rated the amount of time and energy/effort they

were planning to spend on health and fitness in the upcoming

week, on a scale of 1 (much less than usual) to 5 (much more

than usual); these items were averaged to create an index of

goal pursuit intentions (r ¼ .826, p < .001).

Results

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to test the effect of support

type (instrumental vs. emotional) and gender (male vs. female)

on goal pursuit intentions. No significant main effects of

support-type condition or gender emerged for goal pursuit inten-

tions (see Table 6). Participants with instrumentally supportive

partners planned to spend approximately the same amount of time

and effort on health and fitness as participants with emotionally

supportive partners, and men planned to spend approximately the

same amount of time and effort on health and fitness as women

(see Table 7). There was no significant interaction between gen-

der and support type on goal pursuit intentions (see Figure 3a).

Another two-way ANOVA was conducted to test the effect

of support type (instrumental vs. emotional) and gender (male

vs. female) on goal commitment. No significant main effects of

support-type condition or gender emerged for goal commit-

ment. However, there was a significant interaction between

gender and support type on goal commitment (see Table 6).

Simple effects analysis showed that among women, there was

significantly greater goal commitment in the instrumental

Table 6. Analysis of Variance Results for Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Support Type and Gender in Study 3.

Variables Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Z2p

DV: Goal pursuit intentions Support type 0.14 1 0.14 0.16 .691 .001 Gender 1.66 1 1.66 1.87 .172 .006 Support Type � Gender 0.64 1 0.64 0.72 .397 .002 Error 264.49 299 0.89 Total 7,852.00 303 Corrected total 267.00 302

DV: Goal commitment Support type 0.34 1 0.34 0.42 .520 .001 Gender 0.24 1 0.24 0.29 .590 .001 Support Type � Gender 8.00 1 8.00 9.86 .002** .032** Error 242.69 299 0.81 Total 12,078.50 303 Corrected total 251.94 302 Simple effects: GenderMale 2.63 1 2.63 3.24 .073 Error 242.69 299 0.81 Simple effects: GenderFemale 5.74 1 5.74 7.08 .008** Error 242.69 299 0.81

*p < .05. **p < .01.

8 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

support condition than in the emotional support condition.

Among men, goal commitment did not significantly differ as

a function of support type (see Table 7 and Figure 3b).

Although there were no significant direct effects of support

type on goal pursuit intentions or goal commitment, we pro-

ceeded with a moderated mediation analysis using the

Table 7. Means, SDs, SEs, 95% CIs, and Cohen’s d for Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Support Type and Gender in Study 3.

Variables

Instrumental Support Emotional Support

M SD SE 95% CI M SD SE 95% CI Cohen’s d 95% CI for d

DV: Goal pursuit intentions Support-type main effect 4.99 1.04 .08 [4.83, 5.14] 5.03 .83 .08 [4.88, 5.18] .043 [�.183, .268] Male 5.01 0.94 .12 [4.78, 5.26] 5.15 .85 .11 [4.94, 5.37] .157 [�.186, .500] Female 4.96 1.11 .10 [4.76, 5.16] 4.91 .80 .10 [4.71, 5.11] .052 [�.248, .351]

DV: Goal commitment Support-type main effect 6.28 0.96 .08 [6.13, 6.43] 6.21 .86 .07 [6.06, 6.35] .077 [�.148, .302] Male 6. 14 1.13 .12 [5.91, 6.37] 6.40 .77 .11 [6.19, 6.61] .274 [�.071, .618] Female 6.41 0.81 .10 [6.22, 6.60] 6.02 .90 .10 [5.82, 6.21] .456** [.152, .760]

Note. CI ¼ confidence interval. *p < .05. **p < .01.

A

B

C

Goal Commitment

Gender

Goal Pursuit

Intentions

.07 -.33**

.42**

-.08

Support Type

Figure 3. (a) Health and fitness goal pursuit intentions as a function of partner support type (emotional vs. instrumental) and gender (men vs. women) in Study 3. There were no significant main effects or interactions of support type and gender on goal pursuit intentions. Error bars are +1 SE. (b) Health and fitness goal commitment as a function of partner support type (emotional vs. instrumental) and gender (men vs. women) in Study 3. Women with instrumentally supportive partners had significantly greater health goal commitment than women with emotionally supportive partners. Men did not significantly differ in their goal commitment as a function of support type. Error bars are +1 SE. (c) The effects of perceived support type on goal pursuit intentions via goal commitment, moderated by gender in Study 3. Unstandardized regression coefficients are displayed. The indirect effect of support-type condition on goal pursuit intentions via goal commitment for women was 0.17 (SE ¼ .05), which was statistically significant, 95% confidence interval [.0684, .2836]. No significant indirect effects were observed for men. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Briskin et al. 9

PROCESS macro (Model 7) in SPSS with 10,000 bootstrapped

samples (Hayes, 2013) to test the idea that perceived instru-

mental partner support enhances goal commitment for women

(but not men), which in turn increases goal pursuit intentions.

Instrumental support was coded as 2 and emotional support was

coded as 1, for ease of interpretability, with larger regression

coefficients corresponding to greater partner instrumentality.

Gender was effects coded (men ¼ 1, women ¼�1). Moderated mediation results revealed that instrumental (vs. emotional)

support did indeed increase goal commitment for women only,

which in turn increased women’s goal pursuit intentions; the

index of moderated mediation was �0.28 (SE ¼ .09, 95% con- fidence interval [CI] [�.4738, �.1118]). A significant indirect effect of support type on goal pursuit intentions via goal com-

mitment was observed for women (indirect effect ¼ .17, SE ¼ .05, 95% CI [.0684, .2836]) but not for men (indirect effect ¼ �.11, SE ¼ .07, 95% CI [�.2719, .0205]; see Figure 3c).

Discussion

Three studies tested the effects of perceived partner support on

goal commitment and goal pursuit intentions. Although exten-

sive research suggests that close others may boost goal pursuit,

there is evidence that, under certain circumstances, relying on

others may in fact undermine one’s goal pursuit intentions. The

current research attempted to reconcile these inconsistencies

and explore the conditions under which partner support may

enhance or decrease goal pursuit intentions, as well as explore

the mechanisms underlying this effect.

Our findings demonstrate that thinking of supportive part-

ners (i.e., how a partner may help with one’s health and fitness

goals) bolsters one’s goal pursuit intentions (i.e., the amount of

time and effort one plans to invest in pursuing health and fit-

ness goals in the upcoming week). These results are in line with

research on social support, which suggests that perceived sup-

port from significant others can bolster goal pursuit (Brunstein

et al., 1996; Feeney, 2004; Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro,

2009). Furthermore, they are consistent with research on goal

pursuit (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005; Kruglanski et al., 2002),

which indicates that certain actions (i.e., a partner’s support/

help) may be perceived as goal commitment and may result

in subsequent actions that further advance the same goal.

Relying on others to facilitate one’s personal goal pursuits

may be particularly beneficial, given that people have limited

regulatory resources (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, &

Tice, 1998; Baumeister et al., 2007). In line with this notion,

in Study 1, we found that thinking of an instrumental partner

boosts goal pursuit intentions, especially when one’s cognitive

resources are depleted. This may happen because the availabil-

ity of a partner who could help with one’s goals may alleviate

the negative effect that being depleted or exhausted has on

expectancy of goal attainment. However, we failed to replicate

this finding in Study 2, which might indicate that the effect of

resources is not very robust. Furthermore, although resources

moderated the effect of partner instrumentality on goal pursuit

intentions in Study 1, we did not find an effect on goal

commitment. Although only a speculation, it is possible that

the effect of partner instrumentality on goal commitment would

not be dependent on cognitive resources, if a partner’s instru-

mental support was perceived to provide sufficient resources

for goal pursuit in and of itself (Kruglanski et al., 2012). How-

ever, given the inconsistent pattern of findings, the effects of

resources should be interpreted cautiously at this point.

Finally, the type of support matters; the research reported

here reveals that instrumental support, relative to emotional

support, is particularly important for increasing goal commit-

ment and therefore for increasing one’s goal pursuit intentions.

It should be noted that emotional support may be considered

instrumental in some circumstances (i.e., discussing challenges

for goal pursuit with a partner, which may bolster motivation);

however, our results suggest that goal commitment and goal

pursuit intentions are bolstered more when a partner does

something supportive, compared to when a partner says some-

thing supportive.

The effect of partner instrumentality on goal pursuit inten-

tions only held for women. We are speculating here, but we

suggest that this may be the case because women are socialized

to value warmth and interpersonal connectedness (Olson &

Shultz, 1994), whereas men are socialized to value autonomy

and independence. Thus, women may be more comfortable

accepting support from others and may in turn benefit more

from perceived social support for goal pursuit. Although the

present studies only examined social support that participants

acknowledged, it may also be important to consider how invi-

sible social support can affect goal pursuit intentions (Bolger,

Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000).

To conclude, in three well-powered studies, we consistently

demonstrated that partner instrumentality can both directly and

indirectly boost goal pursuit intentions. The results are in line

with the empirical findings of social support research as well

as with the theoretical notions from the goal pursuit literature.

However, it is important to note several limitations of the pres-

ent studies and to discuss the implications and potential future

directions. First, all three studies were conducted on Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk, which tempers the confidence that results are

broadly generalizable (cf. Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling,

2011). Second, participants in Studies 1 and 2 were more likely

to be excluded in the “low resources” condition for failing to

follow instructions, which challenges the assumption of ran-

dom assignment. Third, Study 3 did not have a control condi-

tion; thus, the effects of emotional versus instrumental

support should be interpreted with caution. Another threat to

generalizability of the current findings is the fact that this

research focused exclusively on health and fitness goals.

Although these are important goals (i.e., Kopetz, Faber, Fish-

bach, & Kruglanski, 2011), it is important to extend this

research to other types of goals that people pursue (i.e., one’s

career) and also examine goal pursuit behavior in addition to

goal pursuit intentions.

While our findings failed to replicate the outsourcing self-

regulation findings of Fitzsimons and Finkel (2011), there are

theoretical reasons to believe that a partner’s support could

10 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

be, under certain circumstances, perceived as goal progress

rather than goal commitment. This could lead to “goal switch-

ing” rather than to “goal persistence” that was found in the

studies reported above. Future studies should examine the con-

ditions under which perceived partner support may indeed be

substitutable for one’s own effort and may therefore undermine

goal pursuit.

Authors’ Note

Research materials are accessible at https://osf.io/wknd3/.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Wojcik, J. R. (2007). Self-

regulation, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and social support:

Social cognitive theory and nutrition behavior. Annals of Beha-

vioral Medicine, 34, 304–312. doi:10.1007/BF02874555

Austen, J. (2016). Chapter XI. In The complete novels of Jane Austen

[Google Play version] (p. 699). Retrieved April 28, 2017, from

https://books.google.com/books?id¼9K6TDgAAQBAJ&print sec¼copyright&source¼gbs_pub_info_r#v¼onepage&q&f¼false

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M.

(1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265. doi:10.

1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength

model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-

ence, 16, 351–355.

Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support

and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 79, 953–961. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.953

Brunstein, J. C., Dangelmayer, G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (1996). Per-

sonal goals and social support in close relationships: Effects on

relationship mood and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 71, 1006–1019. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.

71.5.1006

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. (2011). Amazon’s Mechan-

ical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1037/

e527772014-223

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism.

Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 879–889.

Cohen, S., Gottlieb, B., & Underwood, L. (2000). Social relationships

and health. In S. Cohen, L. Underwood, & B. Gottlieb (Eds.), Mea-

suring and intervening in social support (pp. 3–25). New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buf-

fering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. doi:10.

1037//0033-2909.98.2.310

Cutrona, C. E. (1990). Stress and social support—In search of optimal

matching. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 3–14. doi:

10.1521/jscp.1990.9.1.3

Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal striv-

ings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 87, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.87.5.631

Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The lib-

erating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of

Consumer Research, 32, 370–377.

Fitzsimons, G. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Outsourcing self-regulation.

Psychological Science, 22, 369–375. doi:10.1177/0956797610

397955

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con-

ditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New

York: The Guilford Press.

Kopetz, C., Faber, T., Fishbach, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2011).

The multifinality constraints effect: How goal multiplicity narrows

the means set to a focal end. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 100, 810.

Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Chen, X., Köpetz, C., Pierro, A., &

Mannetti, L. (2012). The energetics of motivated cognition: A

force-field analysis. Psychological Review, 119, 1–20. doi:10.

1037/a0025488

Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, Y.

W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 331–378. doi:

10.1016/s0065-2601(02)80008-9

Landman-Peeters, K. M., Hartman, C. A., Pompe, G. V., Boer, J.

A., Minderaa, R. B., & Ormel, J. (2005). Gender differences

in the relation between social support, problems in parent-

offspring communication, and depression and anxiety. Social

Science & Medicine, 60, 2549–2559. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.

2004.10.024

Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands

make light the work: The causes and consequences of social

loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,

822.

Lurquin, J. H., Michaelson, L. E., Barker, J. E., Gustavson, D. E., Von

Bastian, C. C., Carruth, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2016). No evidence

of the ego-depletion effect across task characteristics and individ-

ual differences: A pre-registered study. PLoS One, 11, e0147770.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147770

Olson, D. A., & Shultz, K. S. (1994). Gender differences in the

dimensionality of social support. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 24, 1221–1232. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.

tb00555.x

Orehek, E., & Forest, A. L. (2016). When people serve as means to

goals: Implications of a motivational account of close relation-

ships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 79–84.

doi:10.1177/0963721415623536

Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelan-

gelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science,

18, 305–309. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01657.x

Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., Jacobshagen, N., Perrot, T., Beehr, T. A.,

& Boos, N. (2008). The emotional meaning of instrumental social

Briskin et al. 11

support. International Journal of Stress Management, 15,

235–251. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.15.3.235

Siceloff, E. R., Wilson, D. K., & Horn, L. V. (2013). A longitudinal

study of the effects of instrumental and emotional social support

on physical activity in underserved adolescents in the ACT trial.

Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 48, 71–79. doi:10.1007/s12160-

013-9571-x

Srivastava, S., McGonigal, K. M., Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., &

Gross, J. J. (2006). Optimism in close relationships: How seeing

things in a positive light makes them so. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 91, 143.

Author Biographies

Julia L. Briskin is a doctoral student at Wayne State University.

Her research interests focus on how relationship and self-

regulation processes interact to influence psychological health in

romantic couples.

Catalina E. Kopetz is an assistant professor at Wayne State Univer-

sity. Her research interests focus on self-regulation phenomena from

the perspective of motivation as cognition.

Gráinne M. Fitzsimons is an associate professor at The Fuqua School

of Business at Duke University. Her research interests focus on inter-

personal relationships, self-regulation, and motivation.

Richard B. Slatcher is an associate professor at Wayne State Univer-

sity. His research interests focus on close relationship processes and

investigations of the links between close relationships, biological pro-

cesses, and physical health.

Handling Editor: Simine Vazire

12 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)