Psychology HW

The Automatic Pursuit and Management of Goals James Y. Shah

Duke University

ABSTRACT—This article reviews recent research on the

automatic activation and management of goals. In par-

ticular, it focuses on research examining the variety of

ways in which goals may be automatically brought to mind

in everyday settings and how such goal priming may affect

individuals’ deliberate goal pursuits. Moreover, given the

variety of ways in which goals may be automatically ac-

tivated and the often numerous goals people deliberately

choose to pursue, the article also examines an important

component of effective self-regulation: automatically manag-

ing, or ‘‘juggling,’’ various pursuits in order to best ensure

their successful completion.

KEYWORDS—automaticity; self-regulation; goals

The process of adopting and pursuing goals has often been

construed as a very purposeful affair in which goals are care-

fully chosen on the basis of factors such as their perceived value

and difficulty and deliberately pursued through the use of the

best possible means. Certainly, many goals are pursued in such

an intentional fashion, but a growing body of research suggests

that goals may often be initiated and pursued automatically, and

such automatic strivings may have significant implications for

social evaluations, social behavior, and subjective experience

(see Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Troetschel,

2001). The possibility that individuals automatically initiate

goal pursuits has led my colleagues and me to consider a number

of fundamental questions regarding how this automatic activa-

tion, or priming, of goals may occur in everyday settings. What

aspects of the environment, for instance, might cause someone to

spontaneously pursue a goal? Moreover, how does an individu-

al’s self-regulatory system cope with the variety of goals poten-

tially primed by the environment? The present review addresses

such questions by considering the nature of goal priming and the

automatic ways in which people manage their various pursuits.

THE SOURCES AND CONTEXT OF GOAL PRIMING

How and when might goals be implicitly brought to mind in

everyday settings? Although Bargh and his colleagues have quite

successfully primed goals by taking advantage of their associa-

tions to semantically related words, goals’ motivational qualities

and their self-regulatory function may create different types of

associations and allow goals to be primed through other routes.

Two such routes are considered in this section: goals’ association

to those things that help bring about their attainment (i.e., at-

tainment means) and goals’ association with other individuals.

Instrumental Goal Priming

One potential source of goal priming may be those things people

do or encounter in the environment that typically help to bring

about goal attainment: Because a particular goal is often pur-

sued in particular settings, with particular individuals, and

while one is engaging in specific activities or behaviors, the goal

may become associated with these settings, individuals, and

behaviors, which can collectively be termed attainment means

(see Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997; Shah & Kruglanski,

2000). The strength of such means-goal associations may de-

pend not on the semantic relation of the means and goal, but

rather on their perceived functional relation (i.e., the degree to

which the means is perceived to facilitate attaining the goal in

question). The stronger a means-goal association, the more

likely that encountering (or engaging in) the means will auto-

matically invoke the goal. Indeed, in a study complementing

and extending traditional top-down models of self-regulation

that focus on the downward progression of self-regulation from

relatively abstract goals to more concrete means (see, e.g.,

Carver & Scheier, 1998), we recently found compelling evi-

dence that means may prime goals in a ‘‘bottom-up’’ fashion

(Shah & Kruglanski, 2002).

Such findings also have a number of implications for op-

timizing self-regulation. For instance, they suggest that sur-

rounding oneself with various means for pursuing a goal may

move the goal to the center of one’s attention, enhancing one’s

commitment to its pursuit and attainment. It is also of interest to

Address correspondence to James Y. Shah, Department of Psychol- ogy SHS, Duke University, Box 90085, Durham, NC 27708; e-mail: [email protected].

CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

10 Volume 14—Number 1Copyright r 2005 American Psychological Society

consider how qualities of the means themselves may affect their

goal-activating capacity. One quality that may be relevant is the

degree to which a specific means serves other objectives be-

sides the goal in question. Indeed, a goal may be less likely to be

primed by a means that also serves other goals than by a means

that serves only that goal (Shah & Kruglanski, 2000).

Interpersonal Goal Priming

Another potential source of goal priming, one that would be of

particular interest to social psychologists, is other individuals,

especially those of great personal importance to the person in

question (i.e., significant others). Moreover, this source of goal

priming may be unique in depending on the strength and nature

of an individual’s relationships to significant others. The

stronger a person’s relationship with a significant other, the

more likely that person would be to consider what the signifi-

cant other wants him or her to pursue. A close relationship may

also encourage individuals to consider, and adopt, the goals

their significant others are pursuing themselves.

Indeed, research has quite compellingly documented how

significant others may automatically influence how people feel

about themselves and others (see, e.g., Andersen & Berk, 1998).

Building on this work, in a recent study I found that when in-

dividuals were subliminally presented with the name of a close

significant other who would want them to do well on an experi-

mental task, the salience of the task goal increased, and par-

ticipants’ persistence and performance on the task increased

(Shah, 2003a). Moreover, this priming effect was moderated by

participants’ closeness to the primed significant other and how

strongly the significant other was perceived to feel about the goal.

These studies also revealed that priming a significant other

inhibited pursuit of a goal when the significant other did not

endorse that goal or was strongly associated with the pursuit of

a different and unrelated goal. Moreover, in a related set of

studies (Shah, 2003b), I also found evidence suggesting that

significant others may implicitly affect not only the extent of

goal pursuit, but also how such pursuit is consciously perceived

and experienced. Significant others, for instance, may auto-

matically affect the perceived difficulty, value, and functions of

goals; these effects, in turn, have consequences for how indi-

viduals feel emotionally about their success and failure in goal-

related activities (see Shah, 2003b).

Finally, the notion that individuals may implicitly prime goal

pursuit also raises the issue of whether social interactions are

sometimes attempts to regulate the salience and pursuit of

specific goals. People may, for example, automatically seek out

individuals strongly associated with the goals they want to

pursue, as when a focus on work leads someone to forge closer

relations with current colleagues and to avoid old friends (at

least temporarily). In a study supporting such a possibility

(Fitzsimons & Shah, 2005), individuals subliminally presented

with words designed to prime a goal to achieve academically

(vs. a control word) reported feeling significantly closer to those

specific significant others who would best help them attain this

goal and also indicated that they intended to spend more time

with these individuals in the upcoming week. In contrast,

priming the goal of academic success decreased participants’

perceived closeness to, and desire to spend time with, those sig-

nificant others who would not facilitate academic success.

Goal Priming in the Middle of Something Else:

Exploring Goal Pull

Another important characteristic of goal priming in everyday

settings is that it may often occur in an explicit motivational

context (i.e., while one is consciously pursuing something else).

With this in mind, we have also examined how automatic goal

priming may interact with more deliberate goal pursuit. Indeed,

across four different studies (Shah & Kruglanski, 2002), we

consistently found that priming alternative goals affected par-

ticipants’ commitment to a currently pursued objective. This

change in commitment, in turn, affected how strenuously partic-

ipants pursued the goal and how emotional they felt about suc-

ceeding or failing. Moreover, these priming effects were con-

sistently moderated by the degree to which the focal goal was

related to its primed alternative: Whereas priming an unrelated

alternative goal had a detrimental effect on goal commitment,

priming a related goal actually increased commitment to the

goal. Such moderation suggests that the salience of an unrelated

goal requires that attention be pulled away from a focal pursuit,

and that the salience of a related alternative pulls attention to-

ward attainment of the focal goal because related alternatives can

be construed as reasons or means for pursuing the original goal.

IMPLICATIONS OF GOAL PRIMING FOR

SELF-REGULATION: MANAGING MULTIPLE

GOAL PURSUITS

Given the variety of ways in which goals may be primed in the

everyday environment and the numerous goals individuals often

consciously choose to pursue, an important, although perhaps

underexamined, component of effective self-regulation is the

manner in which people prioritize and ‘‘juggle’’ multiple pur-

suits and resolve goal conflict in order to best ensure the suc-

cessful attainment of as many goals as possible. In our research,

we have sought to examine the mechanisms involved in such

goal management and the degree to which they may unfold

automatically. I briefly consider two possibilities here.

Managing Multiple Goals Through the Automatic

Regulation of Attention: Goal Shielding

The findings on goal pull suggest that there may be significant

benefit from inhibiting alternative goals: To the extent that al-

ternative goals are accessible, they may interfere with com-

mitment to the original goal by competing with it for limited

Volume 14—Number 1 11

James Y. Shah

mental resources. In addition to aiding self-control and the

maintenance of goal pursuit, an inhibitory process may con-

tribute to the dynamic nature of motivation (i.e., how it changes

over time). For instance, consider the classic ‘‘goal looms larger

effect,’’ in which one’s motivation to pursue a goal grows stronger

as one gets closer to its attainment (see Lewin, 1935). This effect

may be due, in part, to the continued inhibition of alternatives

that accompanies an ongoing goal pursuit. Thus, one reason a

goal may loom larger is because alternatives grow smaller.

Recently, we explored the role of goal inhibition in self-reg-

ulation by examining how the activation of goals may inhibit the

salience of one’s other important intentions (Shah, Friedman, &

Kruglanski, 2002). Five studies consistently found evidence of

such goal shielding, particularly when individuals were highly

committed to an activated goal because of its perceived im-

portance. We also found evidence suggesting that such shield-

ing may depend on one’s emotional state, in that the inhibition

of alternative goals was tied to participants’ level of anxiety and

their level of depression in different ways. Whereas depression

hindered intergoal inhibition, anxiety appeared to strengthen it.

The results of these studies also suggest that such inhibition

does not occur equally for all alternatives. Rather, we found that

goal activation readily inhibits alternatives that fulfill the same

regulatory need as the focal goal (i.e., that are substitutable for

it). Thus, for some individuals, the goal of playing tennis may

readily inhibit the goal of jogging because both fulfill a higher-

order need to get in shape. However, goal activation less readily

inhibits alternatives whose attainment is viewed as facilitating

the salient focal goal. Thus, for other individuals, the goal of

playing tennis may not inhibit the goal of jogging because they

perceive the latter as helping them attain the former.

Finally, perhaps our most important finding is that goal

shielding may serve important self-regulatory functions in that

it has distinct consequences for how intensely goals are pursued

and how likely they are to be attained (as measured by indi-

viduals’ persistence and performance in pursuing specific goal-

related tasks). Future research will examine the extent to which

this inhibitory process is a stable trait that differs between in-

dividuals and influences their long-term goal pursuits and

general psychological well-being (see Shah et al., 2002).

Managing Multiple Goals Through the Automatic

Regulation of Effort

Although effective goal management may often involve the

shielding of goal pursuits from potentially distracting alterna-

tives, these alternatives must eventually be addressed, and in

some instances they must be addressed immediately. Thus, one

may often need to make allowances for goals that one antici-

pates pursuing in the near future. For example, recent research

by Baumeister and his colleagues suggests that the general

energy one has available for self-regulation is limited, and often

depleted by arduous (and recent) goal pursuits (e.g., Baumeis-

ter, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). The possibility of

what Baumeister and his colleagues label ego depletion may

require that individuals ‘‘save’’ energy for salient future pur-

suits, even when doing so may detrimentally affect a current

pursuit. This conservation of effort may depend on various

qualities of one’s future pursuits, such as their difficulty and

importance and, of course, their immediacy. Indeed, recent

work (Shah, Brazy, & Jungbluth, 2005) supports this prediction.

When led to believe, for instance, that a subsequent task would

be difficult, participants demonstrated an automatic motivation

to conserve their effort for this upcoming task, and their present

task performance and persistence was adversely affected.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS: STRATEGIC GOAL

DISENGAGEMENT

Although the present examination has detailed some intriguing

findings regarding the implicit nature of goal pursuit and goal

management, much about these processes remain to be speci-

fied. For instance, individuals may not only automatically limit

their effort in pursuing goals to conserve resources for upcoming

pursuits, but may also, in some instances, let go of goals alto-

gether. Indeed, although research has long focused on the

factors (e.g., optimism and confidence) that may encourage

perseverance in pursuing goals and on the impact of such per-

severance on goal attainment and general well-being (see

Bandura, 1977; Carver & Scheier, 1998), disengagement from

goals may also play a vital role in effective self-regulation given

limited resources and often numerous goal pursuits. By effi-

ciently dropping goal pursuits, individuals may avoid wasting

effort on quixotic pursuits and may better position themselves to

take advantage of ‘‘golden opportunities’’ to pursue other goals.

Perhaps not surprisingly then, Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz,

and Carver (2003) have recently linked individuals’ ability to

disengage from goals to their general well-being over time. Yet,

despite the potential self-regulatory significance of goal dis-

engagement, relatively little is known about the nature of this

process. For instance, the degree to which it may be instigated

automatically is unclear, and researchers do not know whether

the factors affecting goal disengagement are fundamentally

different from those involved in initially adopting a goal. Such

intriguing questions await future study and only further high-

light the utility of considering the complex, and often automatic,

ways in which goals are activated, prioritized, and pursued.

Recommended Reading Chartrand, T.L., & Bargh, J.A. (2002). Nonconscious motivations: Their

activation, operation, and consequences. In A. Tesser, D. Stapel,

& J.V. Wood (Eds.), Self and motivation: Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 13–41). Washington, DC: American Psychologi- cal Association.

Shah, J. (2003a). (See References)

Shah, J.Y., Kruglanski, A.W., & Friedman, R. (2002). A goal systems

approach to self-regulation. In M.P. Zanna, J.M. Olson, & C.

12 Volume 14—Number 1

Implicit Goal Management

Seligman (Eds.), The Ontario Symposium on Personality and So- cial Psychology (pp. 247–276). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

REFERENCES

Andersen, S.M., & Berk, M.S. (1998). Transference in everyday

experience: Implications of experimental research for relevant

clinical phenomena. Review of General Psychology, 2, 81–120.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bargh, J.A., Gollwitzer, P.M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Troet-

schel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation

and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014–1027.

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.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fitzsimons, G., & Shah, J.Y. (2005). Instrumentally yours: How goal pursuits automatically affect social relations. Unpublished man- uscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Gollwitzer, P.M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions

and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171–183.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers (D.E. Adams & K.E. Zener, Trans.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Shah, J. (2003a). Automatic for the people: How representations of

significant others implicitly affect goal pursuit. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 84, 661–681.

Shah, J.Y. (2003b). The motivational looking glass: How significant

others implicitly affect goal appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 424–439.

Shah, J.Y., Brazy, P., & Jungbluth, N. (2005). SAVE it for later: Implicit effort regulation and the self-regulatory anticipation of volitional exertion. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Shah, J.Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A.W. (2002). Forgetting

all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1261–1280.

Shah, J.Y., & Kruglanski, A.W. (2000). Aspects of goal networks: Im-

plications for self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M.

Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 85–110). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Shah, J.Y., & Kruglanski, A.W. (2002). Priming against your will: How

accessible alternatives affect goal pursuit. Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 38, 368–383.

Wrosch, C., Scheier, M.F., Miller, G.E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. (2003).

Adaptive self-regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengage-

ment, goal re-engagement and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1494–1508.

Volume 14—Number 1 13

James Y. Shah