for aks198 - week 4 questions

motivation_3e_ch11.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >for aks198 - week 4 questions

In all human affairs there is always an end in view—of pleasure, or honor, or advantage.

—Polybius, 125 B.C.

Our plans miscarry because they have no aim. When a man does not know what harbor he is making for, no wind is the right wind.

—Seneca, 4 B.C.–65 A.D.

■ Whereas incentives are potential motivators, goals are actual ones. For example, a goal of reading this chapter can be to find and understand the answers to the following questions:

1. Where do people’s goals originate?

2. What goal characteristics are important for motivation?

3. What factors determine whether a goal should be pursued?

4. How do goals motivate behavior?

5. How are goals achieved, and what happens when they are not?

Origins of Goals “Skating takes up 70% of my time,” Michelle says. “School about 25%. Having fun and talking to my friends 5%. It’s hard. I envy other kids a lot of things, but I get a guilt trip when I’m not training” (Swift, 1998, p. 117). These are the words of Michelle Kwan, whose goal was to win a gold medal in the 1998 winter Olympics. To achieve this goal she divided her time as described above. In addition, she never took a day off, skated when tired, took no vacations, and even skated on Christmas day. She has also skated with a sore throat, runny nose, flu, and chicken pox. Michelle even turned down her father’s offer of $50 for every day she did not skate. She is a person totally committed to her goal. (Swift, 1998, p. 118)

The purpose of this section is to describe how goals differ from incentives and the various sources that give rise to goals.

Incentives versus Goals There are many similarities between incentive motivation (discussed in the last chapter) and goal motivation. There are also differences.

C H A P T E R

262

Goal Motivation

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 263

Differentiating Characteristics. When faced with choices on how to spend time and effort to obtain an outcome or incentive, the outcome or incentive that is chosen becomes the goal (Klinger, 1977). For example, Michelle Kwan’s goal was to become an Olympic skater rather than to become a successful water skier. There are other differences between incentive and goal motivation. First, goals are portrayed as larger and more important in scope than incentives. The goal of winning an Olympic gold medal, for example, also entails such aspects as personal achievement, worldwide recognition, and possibly product endorsements. Second, goals are usually more complex than incentives and have both positive and negative features to be approached and avoided, respectively. For example, in a risky investment, a person could earn a lot of money but she could also lose it. Third, goals involve the cognitive realm of motivation. A person cognitively evaluates the worth of a goal and the chances of achieving it and then formulates the necessary plans for doing so. Michelle, for instance, made long-range plans to try to achieve her goals (Swift, 1998). Fourth, a person’s goals are usually one-time events that will not be repeated. Incentives, in contrast, occur over and over. For example, the goal of a university degree happens once, while a monetary incentive occurs repeatedly in different situations. Fifth, incentives can serve as assists toward the achievement of a goal. For example, a profit-sharing incentive motivates sales personnel to achieve the company’s goal of the number of units sold for the year. Finally, it is also possible to have more than one goal. A person may work toward one goal and then shift direction and work toward another goal.

From Incentives to Goals. Consider the following alternatives facing a hypothetical student on a Saturday afternoon:

1. Wash dirty clothes. (Clean clothes have a great utility.) 2. Prepare for a psychology exam on Monday. (An A in this class is important for achiev-

ing a desired career in psychology.) 3. Decide whether to go to a party that evening and whom to ask as a date. (Enjoying

oneself and looking for a romantic partner are important to a sense of well-being.)

One task in the psychology of motivation is discovering what incentives people pur- sue (Karniol & Ross, 1996). In this example, what factors determine the incentives the stu- dent is going after: clean clothes, an A on Monday’s exam, or the party? If the student decides on clean clothes, then washing clothes becomes a goal. If the student decides on an A on the exam, then earning the A becomes a goal. If she decides on the party, then going to it becomes a goal. Which incentive is selected, however, depends on several factors. First, the value of an incentive affects whether it will be selected as a goal. Washing clothes competes with studying for the exam. Doing well on the exam may be more important than clean clothes, but since clean clothes are needed in a few hours and the exam is still two days away, clean clothes may have higher value. Second, all other things being equal, the incentive with the highest probability of success will be selected as a goal. The probabili- ties of getting a date, going alone, or staying home determine whether the student decides to go to the party. The time and effort to achieve a goal are also factors in the decision. If in- centives are valued equally, then the one requiring the least amount of time and effort is pur- sued (Hull, 1943; Tolman, 1932). Perhaps the student will choose to wash clothes, if that requires less time and effort than studying for the exam. Incentive value or utility, probability, and effort are all factors that interact to determine what incentive becomes a goal.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

264 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

Long Short

Time until Goal

S tr

en g

th o

f T en

d en

Approach tendency Avoidance tendency

Intermediate

Strong

Weak

A person persists in trying to achieve a goal, however, until one of three things has oc- curred: the goal has been achieved, the original goal has been displaced by another goal, or the goal has simply been abandoned (Atkinson & Birch, 1970; Klinger, 1977). A person can also be working on achieving one goal while at the same time be thinking or planning on how to achieve another.

Future Orientation of Goals. The seeming capacity of the future to motivate present behavior is a feature that goals share with incentives. This capacity is realized when a future positive goal is represented in the present as something a person is motivated to become or motivated to achieve. A negative goal, when visualized in the present, however, is to be avoided and represents what a person does not want to become. It is the current represen- tation of a goal that becomes the occasion for behavioral strategies designed to achieve or avoid it (Karniol & Ross, 1996).

How does a goal’s future location affect current motivation? To illustrate, assume that it has become the goal of your psychology department to require a comprehensive exam of all graduating psychology majors. Two positive features of this goal are that the exam is an opportunity for self-evaluation and for departmental evaluation. Two negative features are your distress and the possibility that you may do poorly. How much in favor are you of this comprehensive exam if it were given two or four semesters from now? Goals, like incentives, are affected by their distance in the future, as illustrated in Figure 11.1. The closer an indi- vidual comes to her goal, the stronger the motivation to approach its positive features and avoid its negative features (Markman & Brendl, 2000; Miller, 1959). When a long time away,

FIGURE 11.1 Goal-Approach and Goal-Avoidance Tendencies. The tendency to approach posi- tive goal features and to avoid negative features increases as a goal draws closer. Changes in the strength of an approach tendency are slower than changes in an avoidance tendency. At distant inter- vals, the approach tendency is stronger, while at nearer intervals, the avoidance tendency is stronger.

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 265

the approach tendency is stronger, but as the goal gets nearer, the avoidance tendency is stronger. In the case of the comprehensive exam, a student supports taking the exam when it is four semesters away because the approach features of this goal are strongest. When the exam is two semesters away, however, a student does not support the goal because now the avoidance features are strongest.

Changes in a goal’s motivational strength vary with time to the goal as a result of delay discounting (Chapter 10). Shelley (1994) demonstrated that losses or negative fea- tures of a goal are discounted more steeply than are gains or positive features. This differ- ence in discount rate explains why the avoidance curve in Figure 11.1 is steeper than the approach curve. Negative goal features are less motivating than positive features far from the goal, but they are more motivating nearer the goal. In the comprehensive exam exam- ple, when it is four semesters away, the negative features of the exam are discounted more than its positive features. When two semesters away, however, the negative features are discounted less than the positive features.

Sources of Goals Goals motivate behavior because people strive to achieve them. One question for students of motivation concerns the origin of goals. Where do goals come from?

Levels of Aspiration. This refers to a person’s desire to excel, to do better the next time, or to do better than others (Rotter, 1942). Research on the level of aspiration describes people’s desires to strive for goals that exceed their current levels (Lewin et al., 1944). It is that part of our human nature that drives us to want more or to improve, not want less or get worse. Setting and pursuing goals is one way to achieve this. For instance, a promotion and raise in salary are likely to be goals while a demotion and cut in salary are unlikely to be.

Association of Goals with Affect. Asking someone for a date may result in either hap- piness if the person accepts or disappointment if not. In this example, the goal of getting a date may arise from its association with affect, which is the subjective tone of an emotion. Affect can be a positive, pleasant feeling or a negative, unpleasant feeling. Goals producing positive affect are approached, while those producing negative affect are avoided. The idea that goals are associated with affect can be traced back to the ideas of Thomas Hobbes in his book Human Nature (1640/1962). In modern terminology, Hobbes would argue that peo- ple pursue as goals those things they anticipate will give pleasure and avoid as goals those things they anticipate will bring displeasure or pain. Troland (1928/1967) elaborated this idea by claiming that the present anticipation of future pleasure is pleasant and the present anticipation of future pain is unpleasant. In this manner, present affect determines a future course of action. Modern psychologists also claim that goals are associated with positive or negative affect, which determines whether something is to be approached or avoided (Atkinson & Birch, 1970; Klinger, 1977; Mowrer, 1960; Pervin, 1989). Animal behavior theorists have also used affect to explain goal-approach and goal-avoidance behavior. According to Mowrer (1960) rats felt hope when in the presence of a stimulus that predicted food. They felt fear, however, in the presence of a stimulus that predicted shock. Positive af- fect like self-satisfaction and negative affect like self-dissatisfaction provide the motivation for personal accomplishments in humans (Bandura, 1991). Bandura and Cervone (1986)

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

266 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

showed that self-dissatisfaction increased when goals were not met, whereas self-satisfaction increased when they were. Furthermore, greater self-dissatisfaction favored lowering future goals. Self-satisfaction gained from previous success, however, favored raising the level of future goals.

The emotions a person experiences from goal success or goal failure also determine goal- setting behavior, according to Weiner (1985). Success at achieving a goal produces happiness, whereas failure to achieve the goal is associated with sadness and frustration (Weiner, 1972). In some representative research, Weiner and Kukla (1970) had female student teachers rate what degree of pride and shame they would feel following feedback about various degrees of success on an exam. Feedback about their exam performance was categorized as excel- lent, fair, borderline, moderate failure, or clear failure. Ratings of pride depended on the amount of success feedback the students received. Pride was lowest for clear failure on the exam and highest for feedback signifying excellent performance. Shame ratings, however, showed the reverse pattern. Shame was highest for feedback indicating clear failure on the exam and lowest for feedback showing excellent performance. Thus, a person may strive to achieve a goal because its accomplishment is associated with pride. A person may avoid pur- suing a goal, however, because of the possibility that failure may bring shame.

Goals That Satisfy Needs. Some substances become goals because they satisfy physio- logical needs. Feelings of hunger and thirst, for instance, are the reasons that gaining food and water become goals. How does an individual know what substance satisfies a particu- lar physiological need? One idea is that the physiological need increases the attractiveness of the necessary substance but not of other substances. As Tolman (1959) expressed in his principle of purposive behavior, the subjective value, or valence, of a stimulus depends on the animal’s or person’s motivational or physiological state. Valence, in turn, determines psychological demand, how much a stimulus is wanted or desired (Tolman, 1932). Accord- ing to the valence concept, an incentive with the highest valence is selected as a goal, whereas those with a low or negative valence are avoided. Thus, for a hungry person food has a positive valence and becomes a goal, while watching television or reading a book has either a lower or a negative valence and is avoided.

A psychological need also influences the valence of the incentive that satisfies it. Attaining that incentive, therefore, becomes a goal. Chapter 8 described psychological needs such as for power and cognition. Goals satisfying these needs might include joining the po- lice force or becoming a crossword puzzle developer. There are also needs concerned with affiliation and intimacy. Goals satisfying these needs might include membership on a team or in an organization. Humans prefer to form close intimate relationships, to love and to be loved. In this case, the goal is to interact with individuals who can provide for this need. In addition, there are needs related to our sense of self-esteem, competence, and mastery. The actual process of achieving a goal helps satisfy these needs. As noted in Chapter 9, person- ality traits also determine what goals become important. The trait of conscientiousness, for example, may determine whether a person considers recycling to be a worthwhile goal. Finally, a person’s value system can determine her goals. If a person places a high ethical value on the lives of animals, then being a vegetarian may become a goal.

Goal Setting for Evaluating Self-Efficacy. Do you think you can make the grade, pass the inspection, or get the job done? Goals serve as a standard for evaluating one’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1991). This is a person’s belief about how capable he is in performing the

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 267

behavior necessary for achieving a specific goal. Self-efficacy is task specific, which means a person evaluates his capability of achieving the task at hand. For example, a pro- fessional musician might rate himself as having high self-efficacy for playing an instrument and low self-efficacy for working with a computer. Indications of success and failure at par- ticular tasks raise or lower self-efficacy, which in turn affects a person’s future achievement striving. Weinberg and associates (1979) compared high- and low-self-efficacy participants for their ability to perform a leg muscle endurance task. Low self-efficacy was created by telling participants they were competing against a varsity track athlete who had outper- formed the participant on a similar task. High self-efficacy was created by telling partici- pants they were competing against someone with a knee injury who had done poorly on a similar task. Measures of the participants’ self-efficacy were low when they compared themselves to the athlete and high when they compared themselves to the injured individ- ual. Furthermore, high-self-efficacy participants predicted better performance and also outperformed low-self-efficacy participants on the leg muscle endurance task.

Goal setting also allows for self-efficacy evaluations of cognitive tasks like problem solving. Cervone and Peake (1986) manipulated self-efficacy by asking participants if they could solve more than, equal to, or less than a standard number of anagrams. The standard was either a high or low number. As a rating of their self-efficacy, participants were asked how many anagrams they thought they were capable of solving. Participants exposed to the high standard gave higher self-efficacy ratings than participants exposed to the low stan- dard. Furthermore, during the anagram-solving task, high-self-efficacy participants per- sisted longer than low-self-efficacy participants. Thus, goal setting allows individuals to test their self-efficacy. Successes and failures can raise and lower self-efficacy, which in turn can raise and lower the motivation to achieve one’s goal.

Environmentally Activated Goals. Goals may become associated with stimuli present in the situation in which goal-achievement behavior occurs. If these associations happen frequently enough, then those stimuli may activate goals. Markman and Brendl (2000) pro- vide an example of a person who notices the picture of a check as part of an advertisement displayed in the window of a bank. The check activates the goal that the rent must be paid, which is achieved when the person arrives home. Murray (1938) had a similar idea when he hypothesized that psychological needs can be evoked by environmental demands (see Chapter 2). The possibility that goal-relevant stimuli can activate goals from memory was provided in an experiment by Patalano and Seifert (1997). In the learning phase, they presented participants with a set of goals and with relevant objects that could be used to ac- complish those goals. In the recall phase, participants were more likely to recall a goal when a relevant object was presented as a cue. For example, when Vaseline rather than masking tape was presented as a cue, participants were more likely to recall the goal: remove stuck ring from finger. Finally, as noted in Chapter 8, the process by which situational stimuli activate goals can occur without a person’s awareness (Bargh & Barndollar, 1996).

Other People as Sources for Goals. A person’s relationships with other people also de- termine his goals (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987). According to social comparison theory, the level of the goal set by an individual is determined by his standing relative to members in the group (Lewin et al., 1944). For example, imagine a task in which some individuals per- form better than the group’s average, while others perform worse. In setting future goals, individuals who are above average tend to lower their performance goals, whereas those

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

268 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

below average tend to raise theirs. As Locke and Latham (1990) note, the demands other individuals make on a person often become goals. Professors make demands on students. Coaches make demands on players. Children and parents make demands on one another. In addition, the goals of the group become the goals of the individual. To illustrate, the goal of the team is to win games, but this is also the goal of an individual player when she joins the team. In the case of a student, if the professor’s goal is to give an exam on Monday, then as a member of the class the student accepts that goal.

Section Recap Goal motivation refers to the ability of a desired end-state to move a person into action. The goal is the incentive a person is motivated to achieve. They are selected from an array of in- centives, depending on their scope, complexity, cognitive nature, and their likelihood of be- ing achieved. Goals are one-time accomplishments, although a person may have several concurrent goals. The motivational power of a goal decreases as its distance in the future in- creases due to discounting. Negative goal features are discounted more steeply than are pos- itive features. People’s level of aspiration, which refers to their desire to want more and do better, serve as the motivation to set goals that accomplish that. Goals originate from their as- sociation with positive or negative affect, which is the emotional feeling the anticipated goal produces. Positive affect leads to approaching the end-state, whereas negative affect leads to avoiding the end-state. Goals are the means for satisfying physiological and psychological needs. Obtaining food is the goal for satisfying hunger, and obtaining praise is the goal for satisfying a need for self-esteem. The valence of a goal determines how much it is psycho- logically demanded or wanted. Goals provide the opportunity for the evaluation of self- efficacy, which refers to one’s capability to perform the task at hand. Achieving a goal increases self-efficacy, while failing to achieve a goal decreases it. Stimuli can activate goals as a result of the repeated association between goal pursuit in situations that contain those stimuli. People are also sources of goals. For instance, in the case of social comparisons, the goal to which a person aspires depends on how his performance compares to other members of the group. In addition, the goal of the group is also the goal of the individual members.

Goal Characteristics and Expectations The purpose of this section is to examine various characteristics of goals. A goal motivates behavior consistent with the value of the goal and guides behavior according to the specificity of the goal. But before a person commits, a goal’s value and likelihood of being achieved are estimated along with whether the goal is framed as achieving a gain or avoiding a loss.

Characteristics of Goals Being bored may mean an individual is not working toward any goal at the moment. A goal, however, motivates an individual, produces goal-relevant thoughts, and guides behavior according to how precisely the goal is defined.

Goal Level and Goal Difficulty. People set goals for themselves at various levels. Goal level refers to the rank of a goal in a hierarchy of potential goals. Higher-level goals have higher value or valence, greater utility, and provide greater benefits compared to lower-level ones. One person may have a goal to walk five miles per week, while another individual

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 269

plans to run 10 miles per week. One student may have a GPA goal of 3.50, while another is satisfied with a GPA just high enough to graduate. Goal level is associated with goal diffi- culty, which means that some goals are harder to achieve than others (Lee et al., 1989; Locke & Latham, 1990). “While high goals may be harder to reach than easy goals, in life they are usually associated with better outcomes” (Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 121). In other words, as the value of a goal increases, the difficulty of achieving it also increases. In an at- tempt to determine the relationship between goal level and outcomes, Mento and associates (1992) told participants to assume that as undergraduate students their goal was to achieve a GPA close to an A (4.00), B (3.00), or C (2.00). Next, participants were asked to rate what benefits their GPA goal would bring, such as pride, respect, and confidence; job benefits; scholarship and graduate school benefits; and life and career benefits. The results showed a strong relationship between the GPA goal level and benefit ratings. Higher GPA goals were associated with greater benefits. Matsui and associates (1981) had students perform a clerical aptitude test that involved detecting a discrepancy between two lists of numbers. The goal set for the students varied between easy and hard. Prior to working on the clerical task, students were asked to rate the expected valence (value) of their goals for achievement, self-confidence, competence, ability to concentrate, and persistence. The ratings showed that more difficult goals were rated as having higher valence and greater benefits.

Goal Specificity. How important is it for a person to be able to visualize a goal? Is it nec- essary for a student to visualize herself in her chosen career? One requirement of goal setting is that a person must be able to visualize the goal in some respect (Beach, 1990; Miller et al., 1960; Schank & Abelson, 1977). The clearer the image a person has of his goal, the better he will know if it has been achieved. “Vague goals make poor referent standards because there are many situations in which no discrepancy would be indicated and, therefore, there would be no need for corrective action” (Klein, 1989, p. 154). A goal with a vague image will more likely result in poorer performance, because feedback from a variety of behaviors may appear to have met the goal (Klein, 1989). In contrast is goal specificity, which is an important part of the goal-achievement process. It refers to how precise the goal is in contrast to how vague or unspecified it is (Lee et al., 1989; Locke & Latham, 1990). For example, during one minute, list 4, 7, or 12 uses for a coat hanger or as many uses as you can (Mento et al., 1992). Listing 4, 7, or 12 uses is a specific goal, while “as many uses as you can” is a vague goal. In the former case, a person can determine whether the specific goal was met, while it is very difficult to determine whether the vague do-your-best goal was met.

An additional benefit of goal specificity is that it increases planning (Locke & Latham, 1990), as demonstrated by Earley and associates (1987). In their experiment, par- ticipants had to present an argument in favor of a certain advertising medium for various products ranging from household goods to business computers. In the do-your-best condi- tion, participants had to present as many arguments as they could in 60 minutes. The goal for these participants was vague, since they did not know when they had done their best. In the assigned goal condition, participants had to present a minimum of four arguments per advertising medium. The goal for these participants was specific. They knew precisely if they had met their goal. Following the completion of the task, the experimenter asked how much planning and energy participants had expended. The results showed that participants with assigned specific goals spent more time planning and expended more effort than participants who were given vague do-your-best goals.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

270 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

3.5

M ea

n N

u m

b er

o f

Im p

ro ve

m en

Goal Level

0.5

1.5

2.5

Low level Medium level High level

S ta

n d

ar d

D ev

ia ti

o n

o f

Im p

ro ve

m en

Goal Specificity

0.5

1.5

Vague Moderately specific

Very specific

FIGURE 11.2a Performance and Goal Level. The mean number of suggested improvements increases with the level of the goal.

Source: Adapted from “Separating the Effects of Goal Specificity from Goal Level” by E. A. Locke et al., 1989, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, experiment 2.

FIGURE 11.2b Performance and Goal Specificity. The standard deviation of the number of suggested im- provements decreases as a goal becomes more specific.

Source: Adapted from “Separating the Effects of Goal Specificity from Goal Level” by E. A. Locke et al., 1989, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, experiment 2.

Joint Effect of Goal Level and Goal Specificity. Goal level affects the magnitude of per- formance, while goal specificity affects the variability of performance (Locke et al., 1989; Mento et al., 1992). Imagine students being asked for ways in which the psychology depart- ment at their university could be improved. The number of requested improvements could vary in specificity. For example, imagine being asked to suggest three improvements, which is a specific number, or to suggest several improvements, which is a vague number. The task could also differ in goal level. Students could be asked to suggest many improvements or could be asked to suggest very few. In the Locke and associates (1989) study, some of the stu- dents were given vague goals at different levels—for example, “List a small, medium, or large number of improvements.” These categories are vague, since a small, medium, or large num- ber is undefined. Other students were given moderately specific goals—for example, “List between one and three, two and four, or three and five ways of improving the department.” Other students were provided with very specific goals at three different levels—for example, “Provide exactly two, three, or four ways of improving the department.” In the actual study, Locke and associates (1989) asked students to list improvements for the undergraduate busi- ness and management programs. The number of proposed improvements should depend on goal level, while variability of the number of improvements should depend on goal specificity. Greater variability is expected for vague goals, because a wider variety of improvements will be accepted as having met those goals. The results in Figure 11.2a show that higher-level, more difficult goals produce a greater number of recommended improvements. The results in Figure 11.2b indicate that variability (standard deviation) in the number of improvements

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 271

decreases as the stated goal becomes more specific. In other words, as a goal becomes more precise, there is greater agreement on whether it has been achieved. In the coat-hanger study described previously, the vague do-your-best goal produced low achievement, with greater achievement resulting from the goal of listing 7 or 12 coat-hanger uses. In general, research has shown that goals that are both difficult and specific result in more achievement behavior than do vague goals or no goals (Locke et al., 1981; Mento et al., 1992; Tubbs, 1986).

The research on goal level and goal specificity has shown that goals have both ener- gizing and directive functions (Locke et al., 1989). Goal level has an energizing function in that it motivates a person to expend effort to achieve a goal. Higher goals lead to greater expenditure of effort. Goal specificity has a directing function in that it informs the indi- vidual exactly what behavior is acceptable for goal achievement. The greater the specificity of a goal, the more precisely it directs behavior. Thus, one major conclusion is that specific, high-level goals lead to greater performance than do vague, low-level goals.

Expected Utility Theory What determines whether a person commits to a goal? Is it the goal that has the greatest likelihood of being achieved? Is it the goal with the highest utility (that is, value)? Or does a combination of these two factors determine one’s goal?

A person may have her sights set on various incentives trying to decide which one to select as a goal. According to expected utility theory, the motivation to select a particular goal is based on the goal’s utility and estimated probability of being achieved. Utility refers to the usefulness or the satisfaction that a goal provides. More valuable goals have greater utility—that is, they produce greater satisfaction. However, as in the case of money, as the value of a goal increases, its utility increases but in lesser amounts (see Figure 10.1). In expected utility theory, the utility of a goal is multiplied by its subjective probability of be- ing achieved (Arkes & Hammond, 1986; Edwards, 1961; Shoemaker, 1982). The resulting product is known as expected utility:

Expected utility � Utility� subjective probability

Thus, when faced with a choice among several incentives, a person determines the utility of each and also estimates the probability of achieving each incentive. Whatever incentive has the highest expected utility is the one selected as a goal.

Meaning of Probability. At this point we should differentiate objective probability from subjective probability. Objective probability refers to the number of times an outcome favoring some event occurs divided by the total number of outcomes that are possible. The probability of obtaining heads in a coin flip is 0.50. This proportion represents the num- ber of outcomes favoring heads (1 in this case) divided by the total number of outcomes (2—heads or tails). Expected utility theory, however, does not rely on objective probability but instead uses subjective probability, which is a person’s belief that a particular event will occur. This belief can be expressed as a number between 0.00 and 1.00 (Savage, 1954). For example, during his first semester at the university a student may form the belief (sub- jective probability) that his chances of earning a B average is 0.50. Based on first-semester grades, however, his probability estimate can change. If he earns better than a 3.00 GPA, then his subjective probability estimate will be revised upward. An earned GPA below 3.00, however, may produce a decline in subjective probability.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

272 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

Choice Based on Utility, Probability, or Expected Utility. How is it possible to sepa- rate the effects of utility, probability, and expected utility? One way was demonstrated in an experiment with elementary school children by Gray (1975). She provided them with arith- metic problems that differed in incentive value and probability of a correct solution. The probability of a solution defined a problem’s difficulty level. Level-1 problems were the eas- iest and level-6 problems were the most difficult to solve. The arithmetic problems were written on index cards and placed in six stacks according to their level of difficulty. The chil- dren attempted to solve problems from each level and were asked: “If you had to do 10 prob- lems from this deck, and they were all pretty much like the one you tried first, how many do you think you could get right out of 10?” (p. 150). The children’s answer to this question was their subjective probability estimate. The utility of correctly solving a problem was defined by the number of red poker chips associated with each difficulty level. If a child solved a problem correctly from the easiest deck, she received one red poker chip. The next easiest deck was worth two poker chips and so on up to six poker chips for the most difficult prob- lem deck. However, if a child did not solve a problem correctly, he had to pay the experi- menter the same number of poker chips as the deck’s value. Since a child could go into debt, each child received 10 red poker chips at the start of the experiment. During the experiment, a child was given the opportunity to solve 15 arithmetic problems in order to earn as many red poker chips as possible.

The problems children selected to solve could be based on the utility, subjective prob- ability, or expected utility of the solutions. First, the children could select a problem deck based on its utility or value as indicated by the number of red poker chips. Children might choose deck 6, since it would provide the most chips. Second, the children might select problems based on the estimated probability of success. Easier problems might be chosen, since more of them could be solved, thus earning more poker chips. Third, children could make their selections based on the expected utility of a problem. The expected utility would be the child’s probability estimate of solving a problem multiplied by the utility of that prob- lem as indicated by the number of poker chips. Different children had different expected utilities for each deck because they gave different probability estimates. For example, one child might estimate deck 4 to have a probability of 0.70, while for another child the prob- ability might be 0.60. Thus, the expected utility for deck 4 (worth 4 chips) for each child would be 2.80 and 2.40, respectively. Gray (1975) examined how the children distributed their choices according to the utility, subjective probability, and the expected utility of a problem deck. The children did not make their choices according to the utility of a deck. Their choices were spread fairly evenly over the different utilities (one to six chips) of the decks. The subjective probability of a correct solution for a problem also had no effect. Their choices were spread fairly evenly over the six subjective probabilities of the decks. The expected utility of a problem deck was the main determiner of the children’s choices. As shown in Figure 11.3, children distributed their choices based on the expected utility of solving the problems. Problem decks with the highest expected utility were chosen most of- ten. As the problems deviated more and more from their expected utility, they were chosen less and less.

Expected Utility with Social Incentives. Expected utility theory also applies to goals involving people. A date’s expected utility influences a person’s choice. Shanteau and Nagy (1979) examined whether dating choice was affected by attractiveness and probability of

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 273

acceptance. In their experiment, female participants had to choose which of two males they would prefer as a date. The photos of the male students varied from attractive to unattrac- tive. An attractive male is usually preferred and presumably has greater utility (Eagly et al., 1991; Walster et al., 1966). The subjective probability that the male student would accept a date was provided along with the photo. The probability levels were: Sure thing, Highly likely, Fairly likely, Toss-up, Somewhat unlikely, Very unlikely, and No chance. The female participants’ preference for a particular male could be determined by the probability of get- ting a date, by the attractiveness of the male, or by the product of probability times attrac- tiveness. The results indicated that female participants preferred those males with the highest product of these two factors—that is, those with the highest expected utility. For ex- ample, moderately attractive males, when paired with “highly likely,” were strongly pre- ferred over more attractive males paired with lower probabilities.

Framing Is a glass half full or half empty? Is an exam the opportunity to earn an A or to avoid an F? Is a date the opportunity to have fun or a way to avoid a lonely Saturday night? Should a person concentrate on achieving gains or avoiding losses? Framing refers to the perspec- tive from which a goal is viewed. A goal can be viewed as either providing the opportunity for making a gain or for avoiding a loss. How a choice is framed coupled with the proba- bility of achieving the outcome determines a person’s decision.

Framing and the probability of gaining or losing money affects our choices, according to Kahneman and Tversky (1979). Imagine trying to decide between buying

Decks (ordered by deviations from maximum expected utility)

120

N u

m b

er o

f C

h o

ic es

Max 0

100

0.1–0.4

0.5–0.8

0.9–1.2

1.3–1.6

1.7–2.0

2.1–2.4

2.5–2.8

2.9–3.2

3.3–3.6

FIGURE 11.3 Choice and Expected Utility. Children made choices based on the expected utility of solving the problem.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

274 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

lottery ticket A or lottery ticket B. Which ticket would you buy if the prospects of winning are:

Problem 1 Prospect A1: 90% chance of winning $3,000; expected utility � $2,700

or Prospect B1: 45% chance of winning $6,000; expected utility � $2,700

Suppose you won the lottery and now have money to invest in a business venture. In this case, concentrate more on the prospects of losing the money during the first year of the business. In which of the two prospects would you invest your money?

Problem 2 Prospect A2: 90% chance of losing $3,000; expected utility ��$2,700

or Prospect B2: 45% chance of losing $6,000; expected utility ��$2,700

What prediction would expected utility theory make for these two problems? Accord- ing to it, there should be no difference in the choices a person would make between the pairs of prospects. In problem 1, both prospects have an expected utility equal to $2,700. Therefore, 50% of the participants should choose prospect A1 and the other 50% should choose prospect B1. Similarly, in problem 2 the expected utility equals �$2,700 in both prospects. Again, par- ticipants should evenly split their choices. The actual results, however, are not in accord with predictions from expected utility theory (see Figure 11.4). In problem 1, 86% of Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) participants selected the prospect of a 90% chance of gaining $3,000.

100

P er

ce n

ta g

e o

f P

ar ti

ci p

an ts

C h

o o

si n

g P

ro sp

ec t

90% chance to win $3,000

45% chance to win $6,000

90% chance to lose $3,000

45% chance to lose $6,000

FIGURE 11.4 Expected Utility and Probability of Gain/Loss. People prefer less risk in regard to winning money but are more risk seeking regarding losing money.

Source: Adapted from “Prospect Theory” by D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, 1979, Econometrica, 47, table 1, p. 268.

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 275

In problem 2, 92% of the participants chose the prospect of a 45% chance of losing $6,000. The two choices made in problems 1 and 2 are mirror images. People prefer a good chance (90%) of gaining a small reward ($3,000) compared to a nearly even chance (45%) of gaining a large reward ($6,000). In other words, people prefer a sure thing as opposed to a gamble. Regarding losses, however, people are risk seeking. They prefer a nearly even chance (45%) of losing a large amount ($6,000) compared to a good chance (90%) of losing a small amount ($3,000). What prospect a participant preferred depended on how it was framed. When the emphasis was on gaining $3,000, participants preferred a sure thing (90% chance). When the emphasis was on losing $3,000, however, participants preferred to gamble (45% chance). The results indicate that the greater the certainty, the more people want to achieve gains and avoid losses. As the probability of a gain increases, its attractiveness increases even though its expected utility is identical to an alternative, less probable gain. In contrast, a less probable although larger loss is preferable to a more probable although smaller loss.

Consider two more problems for which the prospects of winning the lottery are much, much less. Choose between the following pairs of prospects:

Problem 3 Prospect A3: 0.2% chance of winning $3,000; expected utility � $6.00

or Prospect B3: 0.1% chance of winning $6,000; expected utility � $6.00

Consider investing in a business but concentrate on the prospects of losing the money dur- ing the first year. In which of the two prospects would you invest money?

Problem 4 Prospect A4: 0.2% chance of losing $3,000; expected utility ��$6.00

or Prospect B4: 0.1% chance of losing $6,000; expected utility ��$6.00

Predictions based on expected utility theory suggest that participants should choose both prospects equally. In problem 3, the expected utility equals $6.00 for both prospects, and so participants should choose each prospect 50% of the time. In problem 4, the expected utility equals �$6.00 for both prospects, and so participants should also choose each prospect 50% of the time. However, the actual results did not confirm predictions from expected utility theory (see Figure 11.5). In problem 3, 73% of Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) participants chose the prospect (B3) of a 0.1% chance of winning $6,000. In prob- lem 3, it appears almost certain (0.2% or 0.1%) that participants will not win; hence, they prefer the larger amount ($6,000). In problem 4, 70% of the participants chose the prospect (A4) of a 0.2% chance of losing $3,000. In problem 4, even though it appears almost cer- tain (0.2% or 0.1%) that participants are not going to lose, they prefer to lose the smaller amount of $3,000 rather than the larger amount of $6,000. These results show no shifting of preference from gains to losses as occurred between problems 1 and 2.

Prospect Theory The results presented in Figures 11.4 and 11.5 show that people do not behave according to predictions derived from expected utility theory. An alternative, prospect theory, is more descriptive of what humans do (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). According to this theory,

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

276 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

a prospect or goal is appraised with a decision weight that determines its value or impor- tance. Prospect theory differs from utility theory in several ways. First, the psychological value of a loss is greater than the psychological value of an identical gain. This observation comes from Chapter 10 with the example that a $100 loss is more dissatisfying than a $100 gain is satisfying. Second, people prefer smaller gains that are highly likely over larger gains that are much less likely (see Figure 11.4). This preference reverses with losses. Larger risky losses are preferred over smaller losses that are less risky (see Figure 11.4). Third, decision weights resemble probabilities but are not identical with them. Risks at very low probabil- ities are weighted more heavily than the actual probabilities indicate. People are less sensi- tive at intermediate probabilities, and changes are weighted less heavily. Finally, very low or very high probabilities are weighted as certainties (Hastie & Dawes, 2001). For example, Figure 11.5 shows that with 0.2% and 0.1% chances, people chose to win $6,000 over $3,000 and lose $3,000 over $6,000, even though the expected utilities of the alternatives are identical.

What are some implications of the difference between probabilities and decision weights? Probabilities influence how much an incentive is weighted. The weighted incentive or prospect, in turn, determines the individual’s decision. However, when probabilities are very low or very high, people appear to consider them of no consequence. As a result, choice is based on the actual utility of the gain or the actual utility of the loss (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

Perhaps the idea that very low probabilities carry no weight may account for some unsafe behaviors. Why would some individuals engage in unsafe sex or not wear seatbelts unless they thought that the resulting negative consequences would “never happen to me”? Things can only never happen that have a probability of 0.00. Dying as a consequence of unsafe sex or dying in an accident from not wearing a seatbelt have probabilities greater

P er

ce n

ta g

e o

f P

ar ti

ci p

an ts

C h

o o

si n

g P

ro sp

ec t

0.2% chance to win $3,000

0.1% chance to win $6,000

0.2% chance to lose $3,000

0.1% chance to lose $6,000

FIGURE 11.5 Expected Utility and Gain/Loss. When very low, probabilities are ignored and decisions are based on the actual value of a gain or loss. People tended to choose the larger gain of $6,000 and choose the smaller loss of $3,000.

Source: Adapted from “Prospect Theory” by D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, 1979, Econometrica, 47, table 1, p. 268.

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 277

than 0.00. On a more positive note, the high probability that good things can happen also impacts certainty. For example, a student may believe with certainty that he will graduate even though the probability is somewhat less than 1.00. A person may believe in the cer- tainty of forming a lifelong partnership, such as marriage, even though the probability of that happening is less than 1.00 also.

Section Recap Not all goals are of equal value. Goal level refers to the value or valence of a goal, with higher levels indicating higher values. As goal level increases, so does goal difficulty, which refers to how hard it is to achieve a goal. Goal specificity refers to how precisely a goal is conceived. Specific goals, in contrast to vague ones, provide a directive func- tion. Specific, high-level goals lead to better achievement behavior than do vague, low- level goals. Goals have both an energizing function that motivates the person toward the goal and a directing function that informs the person which behaviors are necessary to achieve a goal.

According to expected utility theory, the goal an individual pursues is the one with the highest expected utility. A person arrives at expected utility from judging the utility of a goal and multiplying that by subjective probability, which is a personal estimate of the likelihood that a goal can be achieved. Does the person see the goal as a potential gain or as avoiding a loss? This depends also on how the goal is framed, which means a goal can be viewed either positively as a gain or negatively as avoiding a loss. People prefer gains that have a higher likelihood of success even if the value of the gain is low. This preference reverses for losses. People prefer losses that have a low likelihood of occurring even if the loss has a higher value. Prospect theory maintains that people make decisions based on prospects, which are potential outcomes based on their value and weighted by what is known as a decision weight. Value can refer to a prospective loss or to a prospective gain. Decision weights are based on probabilities but are not identical with them.

Goal Commitment and Goal Achievement The purpose of this section is to describe the process by which a person commits to a goal and how she is motivated by a goal. It concludes with a description of various goal- achievement behaviors and what happens when a goal is achieved or if it is not.

Committing to a Goal True or false: “I think I can graduate from this university.” If true, then you are committed to a goal of graduation and are in the process of trying to achieve it.

Commitment as a Factor in Goal Achievement. Goal commitment is the process whereby a person becomes set to achieve a goal (Klinger, 1977; Locke & Latham, 1990; Locke et al., 1981). It implies a person’s willingness and persistent determination to expend time and effort in its pursuit (Locke et al., 1988). In fact, an analysis of a number of investigations support the generalization that greater commitment means a greater expen- diture of effort in trying to achieve a goal (Klein et al., 1999). For example, the more com- mitted a student is to achieving a particular GPA goal, the more time the student will spend studying. The effects of commitment, however, are more apparent for difficult goals

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

278 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

compared to easier ones. For instance, commitment becomes more important if a student’s goal is to earn a 3.50 GPA compared to a 2.50 GPA. Finally, it appears that greater com- mitment is associated with a goal being more attractive and being considered more achiev- able (Klein et al., 1999). Continuing the GPA example, along with greater commitment comes more appreciation of the GPA goal’s value and of its chances of being reached.

How can goal commitment be measured? One way is to ask how committed an indi- vidual is to achieving a particular goal. A second and more precise way is to use the Hollenbeck, Williams, and Klein Goal Commitment Items (Hollenbeck et al., 1989a, 1989b; Klein et al., 2001). Items recommended for this inventory are shown in Table 11.1 as a set of self-report statements that measure how dedicated or devoted individuals are to a partic- ular goal (Klein et al., 2001). Do you have a GPA goal this semester and how committed are you to it? If this scale measures commitment, then students who score high should spend more time and effort trying to achieve their goal than students who score low. Hollenbeck and associates (1989b) conducted a study testing this predicted relationship. One group of students had voluntarily committed to the goal of a 0.25 increase in GPA, while another group was assigned this goal. Both the voluntary goal group and the assigned goal group had their level of commitment measured with an earlier version of the Goal Commitment Items. The GPA for that quarter improved slightly for students in both groups, but the amount of improvement also depended on the level of commitment. Students who scored higher on the Goal Commitment Items came closer to achieving their goal than students who scored lower.

People can increase their level of commitment by announcing their goals publicly (Salancik, 1977). Telling other significant people like friends about the goal should make it more difficult to abandon. Hollenbeck and associates (1989b) also tested this possibility by having half of the students publicly announce their goal of a 0.25 increase in GPA. This an- nouncement was made by distributing to all students a list of names containing each stu- dent’s GPA goal. In addition, the publicly committed students had to send a statement of their goal to a significant other, usually a parent or sibling. The public commitment manip- ulation worked. Students who had publicly announced their goals earned higher GPAs than students who had not made a public announcement. Thus, one way you can perform better on the next exam is to announce your exam goal score to a friend. This announcement increases commitment and should motivate you to study harder.

TABLE 11.1 Goal Commitment Scale Items

1. It’s hard to take this goal seriously. (R) 2. Quite frankly, I don’t care if I achieve this goal or not. (R) 3. I am strongly committed to pursuing this goal. 4. It wouldn’t take much to make me abandon this goal. (R) 5. I think this is a good goal to shoot for.

Note: Answer each item with this scale: Strongly disagree � 1 2 3 4 5 � Strongly agree. Items followed by (R) are reverse scored; for example, 1 becomes 5 and 4 becomes 2. The higher the score, the higher the level of goal commitment.

Source: From “The Assessment of Goal Commitment: A Measurement Model Meta-analysis” by H. J. Klein et al., 2001, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, table 1, p. 34. Copyright 2001 by Elsevier. Reprinted by permission.

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 279

Negative Feedback Loop. How does a person know if progress is being made toward achieving a goal? Progress toward or away from a goal is represented by a negative feed- back loop, as diagrammed in Figure 11.6 (Campion & Lord, 1982; Klein, 1989; Powers, 1973). The diagram is comparable to the thermostat example in Figure 5.1. In this process, the goal box represents a person’s desired goal. In the case of a student, the goal is, say, to learn enough to earn an A on an exam. The current state box represents a student’s current level of knowledge in relation to the goal. For example, the student assesses her current knowledge of the material to be covered on the exam. Information about the current state and the goal state is fed into the comparator box. If the goal has not been achieved, then the comparator detects this as a discrepancy between the current state and the goal state. The discrepancy motivates the person to achieve her goal. For example, if a student determines that her current knowledge is short of what is necessary to earn an A, then she will study. If the goal has been achieved, then the discrepancy is zero and achievement behavior ceases. For example, a student quits studying on determining that she knows the material well enough to earn an A.

Feedback. How do individuals know if they are making progress toward their goals? Although a goal informs people about what is desired, feedback tells them how they are progressing relative to their goals (Locke & Latham, 1990). A goal also provides the information about what instrumental or achievement behavior is necessary. Feedback about the outcome of this behavior is judged in relation to the goal. As shown in Figure 11.6,

Goal

Feedback DiscrepancyComparator between Current State and Goal

Achievement Behavior

Current State

FIGURE 11.6 Negative Feedback Loop of Goal Achievement Behavior. The comparator detects whether there is a discrepancy between the current state and the goal state. When a discrepancy is no longer detected, it means the goal is achieved.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

280 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

information about a person’s current state is fed back into the comparator to determine the discrepancy between the current state and the goal. However, goals do not motivate behav- ior if feedback is not provided. Bandura and Cervone (1983) demonstrated the joint effect of a goal plus feedback on motivation. They had participants perform an exercise task that required alternately pushing and pulling two arm levers on an exercise machine. The amount of effort expended on this task defined the participants’ motivation. Following five minutes of exercise, participants were divided into four experimental groups. The goal- plus-feedback group was to increase their effort by 40% over the next five minutes and was given feedback as to how well they had done. The goal group was given the same goal but was not provided with any feedback at the end of the five-minute period. Without feedback, participants in this group had no way of knowing how close to achieving their goal they had come. The feedback group was not given a goal but was given feedback at the end of the five-minute period. Their feedback was provided as if they had a goal of 40% increased ef- fort. The feedback was meaningless for this group, since they did not know what the goal was. The control group was given neither a goal nor feedback. To determine the effects of a goal plus feedback, goal alone, feedback alone, or neither, participants were to exercise on the machine for an additional five minutes. During this third exercise period, the group that received a goal plus feedback put forth twice as much effort compared to the groups that received only a goal or only feedback. These last two groups did no better than the con- trol group, which received neither a goal nor feedback. Thus, for a goal to motivate behav- ior, it is necessary to receive feedback.

The necessity of a goal plus feedback on motivation was also demonstrated in an ap- plied experiment on electricity conservation. Becker (1978) recruited households and gave them a goal of reducing their energy by 2 or 20%. Furthermore, half of the households were provided with feedback regarding the amount of electricity they had used every Mon- day, Wednesday, and Friday. The feedback was given in terms of the percent of energy con- served or wasted since the last reading. The other half of the households in each goal condition were not given any feedback. Without feedback, how would a family know if it was getting closer or farther away from the goal? The results bore out the importance of feedback. There was a significant reduction in electricity consumption only for households with the 20% reduction goal plus feedback. When feedback was not provided or the goal was only a 2% reduction, there was no saving in electricity consumption.

Motivational Features of Goal Setting. The feedback loop in Figure 11.6 shows two sources of motivation (Locke & Latham, 1990). One source is the goal itself. The motiva- tional aspect of a goal is that it almost always exceeds a person’s current state or current level of performance. The second source of motivation illustrated in the feedback loop is the discrepancy between the goal and the current state. Instrumental or goal behavior is an attempt to reduce the size of the discrepancy—that is, to bring the person closer to the goal (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Powers, 1973). Behavior is reinforced when the discrepancy decreases, which means getting closer to a goal. Behavior is punished, however, when the discrepancy increases, which means getting farther away from the goal. There appears to be somewhat of a paradox here. On the one hand, people set goals that exceed and are discrepant from their current state. On the other hand, they behave so as to reduce this discrepancy—that is, to achieve their goals (Locke, 1991).

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 281

Goal Thoughts. Have you thought what your first job after graduation will be like? Have you thought how to get that job? Commitment produces thinking about a goal. Klinger (1977) has categorized goal thinking into respondent and operant thoughts. Respondent thoughts are elicited by stimulus aspects of the goals. Respondent thoughts intrude into consciousness and are not sought voluntarily. Examples of respondent thoughts would include musing and daydreaming. Klinger and associates (1980) showed that the frequency of goal-related thoughts depended on how committed people were to achieving their goal. The amount of joy or relief a person expected from the goal and the probability of achieving the goal also determined the frequency of respondent thought. Whereas respondent thoughts might be termed fantasies about the goal, operant thoughts are similar to problem solving. These thoughts are mental attempts to try out different strategies for achieving a goal. Strategies that mentally seem to work for achiev- ing the goal will be tried in actuality, while those that do not work will be discarded (Dennett, 1975; Klinger, 1977). Thus, a student might think what it is like to have a job after graduation (respondent thoughts) and think of possible strategies for getting a job (operant thoughts).

Subgoals as Achievements toward Final Goals. Are there strategies that can help an individual achieve her goals once operant thoughts are translated into goal-achievement behaviors? One strategy is to achieve a series of subgoals along the way toward the final goal. If reaching the top of a ladder is the final or distal goal, then each individual rung is a subgoal, sometimes referred to as a proximal goal. A person must climb each individual rung in order to reach the top of the ladder. Likewise, goals are arranged in a hierarchical fashion, with the final, distal goal at the top and subgoals below (Miller et al., 1960). To reach a final goal, subgoals must be achieved along the way. Incentives that help individu- als reach their final goal become subgoals.

Motivation for the final goal increases with the addition of subgoals that must be achieved along the way (Latham & Seijts, 1999; Locke & Latham, 1990; Weldon & Yun, 2000). For example, Latham and Seijts (1999) had university students participate in a complex simulated manufacturing task during which they were to buy material to build and sell toys. The experiment employed three different groups, each with a different goal regarding the amount of money to be earned. For the do-your-best goal, participants were urged to make as much money as possible. For the distal goal, participants were told to earn more than a specific designated amount. This amount was a difficult goal, according to results from a prior exploratory study. In the proximal-plus-distal goal condition, specific proximal goals were to be achieved along the way toward achievement of the distal goal. The simulated manufacturing task consisted of six 10-minute sessions during which prices changed for the purchase of materials and for sale of the toys. During the sessions, partici- pants had to buy, manufacture, and sell toys while trying to make a profit according to the different goal criteria. Figure 11.7 shows the amount of money earned in each goal condition. The subgoals increased motivation toward the final goal, as shown in the proximal-plus-distal goal condition, in which participants earned the most money. Partici- pants in the proximal-plus-distal goal condition also developed a greater sense of self- efficacy during the course of the six sessions, which helped them perform better—that is, earned a greater profit.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

282 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

Subgoals provide several advantages for achievement of the distal goal. First, they provide a more immediate source of motivation than the delayed motivation provided by the final goal. Second, subgoals serve as feedback about progress toward the final goal. Third, feedback from subgoals provides information about whether achievement strategies are effective or need to be modified. Fourth, the achievement of subgoals increases a person’s sense of self-efficacy, which is associated with increased persistence and effort (Bandura, 1997).

The value of subgoals (proximal goals) also depends on the extent they can help sat- isfy end goals (Markman & Brendl, 2000). A task that is relevant for the achievement of a final goal should be more valuable than a similar one that is not relevant. For example, col- lege courses that are directly relevant for a student’s chosen career should be valued more than other courses. To illustrate the importance of subgoals, take out a sheet of paper. On the left, list all courses you have taken and next to each course indicate how important earn- ing a good grade is for your career plans. Raynor (1970/1974) asked such questions of uni- versity students to determine how important they considered a particular course as a subgoal for their final career goal. He expected that the more important a course was for a student’s career, the better the grade they earned in that course. Courses rated as very im- portant or important were designated as having high career instrumentality. Courses rated as fairly, not too, or not at all important were designated as having low career instrumen- tality. The ratings indicated that students earned higher grades in their high-instrumentality courses and lower grades in their low-instrumentality courses. Thus, as the importance of the subgoal increases, the effort to achieve that subgoal also increases. Raynor also found that students earned higher grades in an introductory psychology course when it had high career instrumentality.

Do your best Distal Proximal � distal

Goal Condition

A m

o u

n t

o f

M o

n ey

E ar

n ed

FIGURE 11.7 Subgoals Increase Motivation. The amount of money earned at the end of a sim- ulated manufacturing task was greatest when participants were given subgoals (proximal goals) along with a distal or final goal. A distal goal alone resulted in the least amount of money earned at the end of the task with the do-your-best goal falling in between.

Source: Adapted from “The Effects of Proximal and Distal Goals on Performance on a Moderately Complex Task” by G. P. Latham and G. H. Seijts, 1999, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, p. 426.

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 283

Achievement Behaviors What happens when goals are established but achievement strategies are not in place? For instance, from studying charts, maps, and books, the navigator Christopher Columbus con- cluded that he could sail west from Spain to reach Asia. He must have been fairly certain of this because he spent nearly eight years trying to find backers for an expedition. Finally, in 1492 Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand agreed to sponsor an expedition. Although his goal was well defined, the method for achieving it was not well planned or was at least based on faulty information. Because of inaccurate maps Columbus never did discover a route to Asia although he did land in what is now known as the Bahamas, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. The lesson here for students of motivation is that the estimated likeli- hood of achieving a goal is an important element of goal motivation. Also, although a goal should be well defined, it is also necessary to have the correct strategy for achieving it. As indicated in Figure 11.6, achieving a goal proceeds by reducing the discrepancy between the current state and the goal. The process of goal achievement rarely proceeds with trial- and-error or random behavior. Instead, goals are accompanied by knowledge that guides behavior instrumental for achieving a goal.

A current question concerns how goals activate relevant achievement behavior. There are two possibilities. First, according to Bargh and Williams (2006), the perception-behavior link refers to the idea that a goal elicits achievement behavior because goals and their achieve- ment behaviors have been associated together many times in the past. Thus, the representation of a goal in consciousness automatically produces relevant achievement behavior. For exam- ple, the goal of writing a paper automatically elicits an image of a computer and its avail- able word-processing program. Second, according to Cesario and coresearchers (2006), motivated preparation means that the aim of the behavior depends on a goal’s valence—that is, whether the goal is negative or positive. Imagine that the concept of a social group has been automatically activated. The perception-behavior link hypothesis predicts that subsequent be- havior toward a member of the group is based on the group’s characteristics. For example, walk slow in the presence of old people, since they walk slow. The motivated-preparation hypothesis, however, would maintain that behavior also depends on whether the group is evaluated negatively or positively. Negative evaluations might prompt avoidance behaviors while positive evaluations prompt approach behaviors. Thus, how slow or fast a person walks may depend on whether the image of an old person was evaluated negatively or posi- tively. If negative, then walk fast to escape; if positive, walk slow to maintain interaction (Cesario et al., 2006).

Goal Achievement and Goal Failure Once a goal is achieved, a person receives both extrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction—that is, extrinsic from the goal itself and intrinsic from the feeling that results from having achieved the goal.

Achievement Valence. While goal valence refers to the benefits derived from a goal, achievement valence refers to the satisfaction a person receives from achieving it. Higher benefits accompany more difficult goals, but the likelihood of attaining satisfaction actu- ally decreases (Mento et al., 1992). A person is more likely to fail to achieve a difficult goal and thus be disappointed. Failure is less likely when trying to achieve an easy goal. In one

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

284 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

experimental demonstration, students were first asked to assume that their personal GPA goal was 4.0, 3.0, or 2.0. Next, to ascertain achievement valence, they were asked how sat- isfied they would be with an A, B, or C average. For example, if your goal was a 3.0 GPA and you earned an A, B, or C average, then how satisfied would you be on a scale from Incredibly dissatisfied to Incredibly satisfied? The results showed that satisfaction ratings decreased as GPA goal increased (Mento et al., 1992, study 7). Satisfaction resulted from an earned GPA exceeding the goal GPA, while dissatisfaction resulted from an earned GPA falling below the goal GPA. A student with a goal of A would only be satisfied with an A and be dissatisfied with anything less. A student with a goal of B would be satisfied with a B but would be much more satisfied with an A and dissatisfied with a C. A student with a goal of C would be satisfied with a C but would be more satisfied with a B and incredibly satis- fied with an A. Thus, as goal difficulty increases, the likelihood of achievement decreases and attaining satisfaction is less likely. People often set goals as high as possible but not so high that the likelihood of failure exceeds some acceptable level.

Consequences of Success and Failure. What happens when goals are not achieved was summarized humorously by the comedic actor W. C. Fields. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, again. Then quit. There’s no use being a damn fool about it.” One consequence of not achieving a goal is to try, try, again. A second consequence is to quit that particular goal, scale it down, or seek an alternative goal.

The negative feedback loop illustrated in Figure 11.6 implies that a goal, once set, is forever fixed. However, just as a homeowner can alter the desired temperature setting on the thermostat, an individual can change her goals. Goals are altered based on the type of feed- back an individual receives regarding goal achievement. If feedback indicates that a person is failing to meet her goal, then one choice is to reduce the level of the goal. Feedback indi- cating success might mean raising the level of a future goal. Furthermore, success and fail- ure affect proximal goals and consequently distal goals, since the lowering or raising of proximal goals will result in a lower or higher distal goal, respectively. These possible effects were examined in male and female track and field athletes during one season of competition (Donovan & Williams, 2003). Proximal goals referred to performance in an individual com- petition and distal goals referred to performance over the entire eight-week season. Prior to each competition, the athletes were asked to indicate their goals for the next competition and for the entire season. How did their goals change when they failed, met, or exceeded their goals? The results showed that if athletes failed to achieve their goals, then there was a ten- dency to lower their goals for the next competition and for the season’s distal goal. However, if they met or exceeded their goals, then subsequent competition and season goals were re- vised upward. Furthermore, the greater the discrepancy between their stated goals and actual performance, the greater the revision of all their future goals (Donovan & Williams, 2003).

Academic goals also change with success and failure feedback. Success and failure affect the level that students set for their proximate goals of individual exams and for the distal goal of the course grade. Campion and Lord (1982) asked university students to re- port their minimum satisfactory grade for an approaching exam and for the course. As would be expected from level of aspiration, the minimum satisfactory grade goal was about one letter grade higher than performance on a previous exam. However, the level of this goal was also consistent with a student’s ability and past performance. So, for example, if a

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 285

student earned a D on the last exam, she might aspire to a C on the next one, while another student who previously earned a B might aspire to an A. In the Campion and Lord (1982) investigation, those students who exceeded their goals were more likely to raise them for the next exam. If a student’s goal was a B and she earned an A, then for the next exam her goal would be raised to an A. Furthermore, consistent and repeated success in meeting exam grade goals led to raising course grade goals. Students who failed to reach their exam goals, however, were more likely to lower them for the next exam. If a student’s goal was a B but he earned a C, then he was more likely to lower his goal to a C for the next exam. Repeated failures to meet exam grade goals also led to a lowering of course grade goals. Raising goals following achievement and lowering goals following failure was more apparent when ex- amined over the entire academic quarter. Figure 11.8 shows that students were more likely to raise their exam grade and course grade goals following success on exams. However, when students consistently failed to meet their goals, they were more likely to lower their subsequent exam and course grade goals. An important conclusion from this research and that of the athletes is that goals are not static. Goals change as a result of success or failure of earlier goals.

There are exceptions to the preceding generalizations. Following success, a minority of students lowered their goals, while after failure another minority raised their goals (see Figure 11.8). Thus, success or failure is not the sole determiner of whether individuals raise or lower their goals. Raising or lowering a goal is mediated by self-efficacy, which is the belief about how capable a person feels about achieving a particular goal. Bandura and Cervone (1986) showed that despite failure, a person with strong self-efficacy was more

100

–50

Following Success

P er

ce n

ta g

e L

o w

er in

g o

r R

ai si

n g

T h

ei r

G o

al s

Exam –100

Exam Course Course Exam Exam Course Course

Following Failure

FIGURE 11.8 Effects of Goal Success or Failure. Students were more likely to increase their exam grade goals and their course grade goals following success in meeting a previous goal. They were more likely to lower goals following failure in meeting a previous goal. The data are averaged over four exams given during the academic quarter.

Source: Adapted from “A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process” by M. A. Campion and R. G. Lord, 1982, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, table 4, p. 279, and table 7, p. 283.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9

286 P A R T F O U R / External Sources of Motivation

likely to try harder the next time, while a person with weak self-efficacy was more likely to decrease effort. Thus, high-self-efficacy individuals are more likely to increase their goal level following failure, while low-self-efficacy individuals are more likely to lower it. In addition, following success, individuals with low self-efficacy did not think they were able to achieve their goal a second time. These individuals were less likely to expend more effort the next time, especially when they had just expended a lot of effort to meet the goal.

Section Recap Once a goal is selected, the process of goal commitment indicates that a person persists in expending time and effort to achieve his goal. The negative feedback loop is a model for goal-achievement behavior. Progress toward a goal depends on feedback, which is infor- mation about the outcome of achievement behavior in relation to the goal. Goal achieve- ment is not possible without feedback. Achievement behavior is motivated to reduce the discrepancy between the person’s goal and current state. Once a person commits to a goal, respondent thoughts, which are fantasies about the goal, intrude into consciousness. Operant thoughts, however, are mental plans about how to achieve one’s goal. Achievement of the final goal is aided by subgoals (proximal goals), which are like individual rungs of a ladder that must be climbed to reach the top or final goal.

Most goals come with definite strategies for how to achieve them. According to the perception-behavior link, a goal activates the appropriate achievement behavior because the two have been associated many times in the past. According to the concept of motivated preparation, goal valence determines the aim of achievement behavior. Positive goals spur approach behavior and negative goals spur avoidance behavior. Associated with goal va- lence is achievement valence, which refers to the satisfaction attained from accomplishing a goal. Following success a goal is usually scaled up, while following failure it is usually scaled down.

A C T I V I T I E S

1. Goal Setting: a. Apply concepts from this chapter by setting

a high but doable goal for your next exam. As an illustration, let us assume your next exam is 14 days away. Answer the following:

My goal on this next exam is to earn a score of ____ .

(This exam score should be higher than the last exam but within reach of your abilities.)

The benefits I hope to achieve from this goal are

___________________________________

_________________________________.

(By setting a precise score, your goal is specific and high enough to motivate you.)

My level of commitment to accomplishing this goal is ____ .

(This score is based on your answers given to the Hollenbeck, Williams, and Klein Goal Commitment Items, table 11.1.)

b. You can increase your commitment to your exam goal as follows:

1. Tell a classmate about your goal. 2. Tell the whole class about your goal. 3. Tell your roommate(s) about your goal.

IS B

N 0-558-46770-9

C H A P T E R E L E V E N / Goal Motivation 287

4. Tell your best friend or a few friends about your goal.

5. Write or telephone your parents, broth- ers, sisters, and/or grandparents inform- ing them about your goal.

c. In order to achieve your goal, there are sub- goals that must be met. To set subgoals, write the number of minutes you plan to study on each of the following days (as- sume exam is 14 days away).

Day 14 ____ Day13 ____ Day 12 ____

Day 11 ____ Day 10 ____ Day 9 ____

Day 8 ____ Day 7 ____ Day 6 ____

Day 5 ____ Day 4 ____ Day 3 ____

Day 2 ____ Day 1 ____ Exam day ____

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

46 77

0- 9