The Influence of Affect on Goal Choice and Task Performance

The present study investigated the influence of mood on self-set goals and task performance. Results from 2 studies suggest a restricted view of mood effects in which affective state influences the level of self-set goals or task performance, but not both. Study 2 reveals asymmetrical mood effects on task performance, with positive- and negative-mood participants exceeding the baseline performance of neutral mood participants. Evidence indicates that goal-setting instructions may alter how individuals interpret motivational implications of mood. Although theory implies an inclusive view in which mood has both direct and indirect (through goal-setting) performance effects, the conflicting influences of affect infusion at different points of the goal-striving process may diminish the likelihood of observing inclusive effects.     

Processes That Mediate the Relationship Between a Group Goal and Group Member Performance

The impact of a group goal on the performance of anonymous and nonin- teracting group members performing an additive group task was tested. Pro- cesses believed to mediate the effect, the role of self-set individual goals, the impact of information about the group's previous performance on the task (group knowledge of results; GRPKR) on goal commitment, and the motiva- tional basis of the goal were also assessed. Seventeen groups of three to five people performed two trials of an idea generation task. In the GOAL/GRPKR condition, group members were assigned a group goal for Session 2 and received information about the group's performance for Session 1. In the goal without knowledge of results (GOAL/NOKR) condition, group mem- bers were assigned a group goal for Session 2 without GRPKR. In the NO- GOAL condition, group members worked without a goal and without GRPKR. In each condition, group members worked on the task without talk- ing to other group members and individual contributions to the group prod- uct were unknown to others. Self-reports of effort, changes in individual performance strategies from Rial 1 to Rial 2, self-set individual goals, goal commitment, and personal challenge were collected. Results showed that (a) group members working toward a performance goal outperformed those working without a goal, b) information about the group's previous perfor- mance on the task did not influence commitment to the goal or performance, (c) changes in individual performance strategies mediated the group goal ef- fect but self-reports of effort invested in the task did not, (d) g m ~ p members working toward a group goal felt more personal challenge than group mem- bers working without a goal, and (e) self-set individual goals can not account for the group goal effect. The implications of these results for models of group goals and group performance are discussed.     

Goal Specificity as a Determinant of Goal Commitment and Goal Change

Two hundred twenty-three subjects worked on an anagram solving task under one of two assigned goal conditions and then self-set goals on a brainstorming task. Both tasks were performed while under one of four specificity conditions. Results revealed that goal specificity raised goal commitment under assigned goal conditions and was related to goal change under self-set goal conditions. In addition, goal specificity was related to individuals′ variability in performance across trials under assigned goal conditions. The implications of these results for understanding the goal setting process are discussed.     

Using Judgmental Anchors to Establish Challenging Self-Set Goals Without Jeopardizing Commitment

We applied the decision-making literature on judgmental anchors to develop a strategy for establishing challenging self-set goals. In experiments involving the generation of uses for common objects, we demonstrated that introducing an arbitrary and unreasonably high anchor significantly increased the value selected as a self-set goal. Self-efficacy and task performance also increased subsequent to the introduction of a high anchor. These results of anchoring goals occurred without reducing the goal commitment that is associated with self-set goals. Moreover, when anchored self-set goals were compared to assigned goals, they were found to have similar levels of performance and greater goal commitment. Discussion focused on the implications of anchoring goals for the processes and outcomes related to assigned and self-set goal-setting situations.     

Type A behavior pattern and goal setting under different conditions of choice

This study examined the effects of the Type A behavior pattern on performance, goal acceptance, goal commitment, and expectancy of success under goal-setting conditions. Participants were assigned to one of four groups, assigned goal/assigned strategy, assigned goal/self-set strategy, self-set goal/assigned strategy, or self-set goal/self-set strategy. Results suggested that Type A persons were more likely to accept a difficult goal and remain committed to that goal, and that they had a higher expectancy of success than their Type B counterparts regardless of goal/strategy condition. With respect to performance, participants in the assigned goal/assigned strategy condition outperformed all other groups. A three-way interaction indicated that Type A persons performed better in the self-set goal/self-set strategy than Type B individuals. Implications of the findings regarding Type A and goal setting are discussed.     

The Effects of Varying Goal Difficulty Operationalizations on Goal Setting Outcomes and Processes

The three studies reported here investigated the effect of operationalization of goal difficulty on the relationship between goal difficulty and performance. Subjects were assigned goals (easy, moderately difficult, or very difficult) under either an absolute goal level or performance improvement condition. Results indicated that the goal difficulty interacted with operationalization in affecting performance. Specifically, there was a linear relationship between goal difficulty and performance when goals were operationalized in terms of absolute level, but an inverted U-relationship between these two variables when goals were operationalized in terms of performance improvement. This interaction held up despite controlling for normative goal difficulty, performance improvement difficulty and absolute goal level difficulty. The effects of operationalization seemed to be attributable to differences in self-set goal levels, particularly among high ability persons. Taken as a whole, these studies indicate that how assigned goals are derived and how they are communicated to subjects affects goal setting outcomes.     

Group and Individual Decision Making for Task Performance Goals: Processes in the Establishment of Goals:in Groups1

The study examines the processes by which goals in groups are established. Performance goals and preferences for goals were stated by individuals acting alone, by groups deciding in unison, and by group members. All subjects performed a card-sorting task as individuals, and self-set goals were selected for expected levels of individual performance. Groups selected goals that were less difficult than individual goals on several occasions of goal setting. Analysis of the group goal decisions suggests that a success-based social comparison process occurs that implies groups select a goal slightly lower than the average of the member preferences so that the group members may appear successful. Analyses also indicated that the lower group goals arose quickly in the group interaction, and that group members readily adopted the lower goals as appropriate levels of performance. Discussion focuses on the observed differences among group, group member, and individual performance goals, and the ability of the success-based social comparison process to account for these differences.     

Enhancing the Effects of Sexual Orientation Diversity Training: The Effects of Setting Goals and Training Mentors on Attitudes and Behaviors

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of goal-setting theory (Locke, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157–189, 1968; Locke and Latham, 1990, A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Locke and Latham, American Psychologist, 57, 705–717, 2002) within a diversity training context to enhance training outcomes. In particular, the training focused on an understudied group—gay men and lesbians—and examined both the short- and long-term outcomes associated with diversity training.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Using experimental methods in a field setting, participants (college students) were randomly assigned to a 2(goal-setting condition: self-set goals and no goals) × 2(mentor goal condition: mentor goals and no mentor goals) factorial design, where behavioral and attitudinal data were collected at two points in time: 3 months and 8 months subsequent to training.

Findings

Participants who developed sexual orientation supportive goals reported more supportive behaviors and attitudes toward gay and lesbian individuals than those who did not. Sexual orientation supportive behaviors mediated the relationship between goal-setting and sexual orientation attitudes.

Implications

The pattern of results suggests that time was the key for participants to meet the goals that were set during the diversity training. Both behaviors and attitudes were influenced by the goal setting at 8 months, but not after 3 months. This study demonstrates the importance of measuring both behaviors and attitudes in assessing diversity training.

Originality/Value

This is one of the first studies to integrate goal-setting theory (Locke and Latham, 1990, A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Locke and Latham, American Psychologist, 57, 705–717, 2002) into the area of diversity training in an experimental field setting. We used a longitudinal design, addressing limitations of past research that usually examine short-term reactions to diversity training.     

Individual Versus Group Decision Making: Social Comparison in Goals for Individual Task Performance

This experiment compares the decisions of individuals and groups on goals for the performance expected from individuals on a problem-solving or an error-checking task. For both tasks, two versions were constructed to reflect low and high levels of task difficulty. Predictions from two different social comparison of abilities approaches were formulated, with the social comparison based on success approach predicting that group goals would be easier than individual goals, while social comparison based on performance predicted the opposite pattern. Consistent with the social comparison based on success predictions, group goals were observed to be significantly less difficult than individual goals for both tasks, both levels of task difficulty, and for both an initial and a second goal-setting occasion. Of particular interest was a finding that the easier group goals reflected group member preferences for easy goals in anticipation of group decision making. It is proposed that social factors such as evaluation apprehension and social comparison may be responsible for the differences observed in group and individual goal decisions, and that social factors may have an important role in a variety of goal-setting situations.     

Effects of goal difficulty, self-set goals, and monetary rewards on dual task performance

The present study tests the effects of goal difficulty, goal origin (self-set vs assigned), and monetary rewards (present vs absent) on the simultaneous performance of two tasks (dual-task paradigm). Participants were 32 students working simultaneously on a computerized task of letter typing with the right hand and digit classification with the left hand. A 2 (self-set vs assigned goals) × 2 (present vs absent contingent monetary rewards) × 3 (easy, moderate, and difficult goals) factorial design with goal difficulty as the repeated factor was employed. Each task element was performed under easy, moderate, and difficult goals, which appeared in six consecutive trials of varied order within each experimental condition. Results indicate that self-set goals without monetary rewards led to the highest performance levels, whereas the combination of self-set goals and monetary rewards was detrimental to performance. These findings occurred (except in one case) only when goals were of either moderate Or high difficulty.     

Social Comparison and Goal Setting in Brainstorming Groups1

Two studies were conducted to examine the influence of individual and group goal setting on brainstorming performance. Results from the studies indicated that the individual goals of nominal participants were higher than the individual goals of interactive participants. Group goal setting by consensus led to the lowest goals. There was no influence of goal setting on group brainstorming performance. However, participants who set goals rated their individual performance more favorably than did participants who did not set goals. The low group goals set by interactive groups are discussed in terms of assumptions made regarding the ability of other group members and the detrimental effects of group interaction.     

Examination of the Roles of Action-State Orientation and Goal Orientation in the Goal-Setting and Performance Process

This investigation examined the roles of action-state orientation and goal orientation in predicting task-specific motivation and performance in an academic context. Results showed that action-state orientation predicted performance independent of goal orientation, cognitive ability, self-efficacy and self-set goals. Goal orientation primarily related to self-efficacy beliefs, which predicted goals and performance. Although action-state orientation and goal orientation were correlated, they had independent relationships with task-specific goal-setting and performance variables.     

Goal orientation, task difficulty, and task interest: A multilevel analysis

We studied whether goal orientation affects the relationships that task difficulty and interest have with self-set goals. Using a sample of 499 undergraduate students who listed grade goals for their classes, we employed Hierarchical Linear Modeling to explain differences in the extent to which difficulty and interest related to goals. Higher goals were set for more interesting and easier classes, and for individuals higher in mastery goal orientation and for those lower in performance-avoidance orientation (at average levels of interest and difficulty). Furthermore, performance-approach and performance-avoidance orientations reduced and strengthened (respectively) the effects of task difficulty on self-set goals, and the buffering effect of mastery orientation was marginally significant. Portions of this paper were presented at the 19^th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL, in April 2004.     

Examining the Unique Effects of Multiple Motivational Sources on Task Performance

This paper examines whether multiple motivational sources uniquely influence task performance. Using the established framework in the goal-setting literature that suggests a pattern of mediated relationships, we test the relationship between assigned goals, incentives, and intrinsic motivation and task performance. The results show that assigned goals, incentives, and intrinsic motivation each positively influence task performance. However, the magnitude of the relationship varies considerably. The relationship for assigned goals was fully mediated by self-efficacy and self-set goals, whereas only a direct relationship emerged for incentives. The data reveal both direct and indirect relationships associated with intrinsic motivation.     

Toward an Integration of Goal Setting Theory and the Automaticity Model

Two laboratory experiments were conducted to assess the extent to which goal setting theory explains the effects of goals that are primed in the subconscious on task performance. The first experiment examined the effect on performance of three primes that connote the difficulty levels of a goal in the subconscious. Participants (n = 91) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions where they were primed with either a photograph of a person lifting 20 pounds (easy goal), 200 pounds (moderately difficult goal), or 400 pounds (difficult goal). Following a filler task, participants were asked to “press as hard as you can” on a digital weight scale. Participants who were primed with the difficult goal exerted more effort than those who were primed with the moderate or easy goal. The second experiment examined whether choice of goal difficulty level can be primed. Participants (n = 133) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Those primed with a difficult goal consciously chose to set a more difficult goal on a brainstorming task than those who were primed with an easier goal. Similarly, their performance was significantly higher. Conscientiousness moderated the subconscious goal–performance relationship while the self‐set conscious goal partially mediated the subconscious goal–performance relationship.     

The Effects of Self-Set Goals on Task Performance

Locke & Latham (1990a) report that specific, difficult goals lead to better performance than "do-your-best" instructions, whether the goals are self-set or are set by an external source. However, in Experiment I, as well as in previous research (White, Kjelgaard, & Harkins, 1995), we did not find self-set goal effects. A meta-analysis showed that self-set goal effects can be produced if two conditions are met: Prior to setting their goals, participants take part in a pretest that is equal in duration to the experimental task; and the experimenter has access to the participants' goals and the performances. Experiment 2 confirmed these meta-analytic findings by showing that when these two conditions were met, goals stringent enough to produce the effects were set, and goal-setting effects were obtained.     

The Influence of Commitment to Assigned Goals and Performance on Subsequent Self-Set Goals and Performance1

Seventy-seven undergraduates were assigned a performance goal for the first of two trials of a word game, and set goals for themselves on a second trial. Goal commitment was hypothesized to moderate the influence of goal level on performance within both trials. In addition, commitment to the assigned Trial I goals was hypothesized to moderate the relationship between goal attainment and self-set goals for the second trial. Subjects' initial performance on a practice trial was also hypothesized to interact with the goal levels they were assigned on the first trial, such that individuals who performed relatively well on the practice trial were expected to evidence a greater positive relationship between goal level and performance than individuals who performed relatively poorly on the practice trial. The results of three moderated regression analyses yielded no support for the hypothesized within-trial moderating influence of goal commitment on goal level-performance relations. However, commitment to assigned goals and goal attainment did interact as related to personal goals for Trial 2. Further, the hypothesized influence of practice trial performance and assigned goal level on Trial I performance was supported. The results are discussed in terms of how goal levels should be determined and assigned to employees, and the role of goal commitment in goal setting predictions.     

Age differences in self-set goal effects for memory

Research has shown that goal setting leads to gains in memory performance and memory self-efficacy across adulthood when goals are set by experimenters and accompanied by positive feedback. However, self-set memory goals have had less consistent impact. This research extended past studies on aging and memory goals to examine the impact of self-set goals using anchors to guide goal selection. Two trials of name, text, and list recall were administered to younger and older adults, comparing goal and no-goal groups. After baseline, participants assigned to the goal group set personal goals for memory gain on a second, post-goal trial for each of the three tasks. Anchoring for goal-setting was used to encourage the selection of realistic, yet challenging goals. Younger and older participants set comparable goals. Only younger adults showed a motivational response (higher gains across trials for goals than no goals), even though older adults reported being just as committed to their personal goals. Older adults may have failed to show reliable goal-related gains because no positive feedback was offered or because they were unable to activate effective strategies for improved performance.     

A Conceptualization and Test of the Influences of Individual Differences in Goal-Setting Situations1

This research tests a hypothesized model of the relationships among several individual differences and variables associated with the setting of goals. Participants were randomly assigned to a self-set goal condition, or to moderately or very-difficult assigned-goal conditions. By aggregating scores of performance, personal goals, ratings of self-efficacy, and goal commitment over multiple goal-setting and task-performance occasions, the overall relationships among these variables and need for achievement, self-esteem, and locus of control were determined. Results provide strong support for Locke and Latham's (1990a, 1990b) model of the goal-performance relation, but fail to support the hypothesized role of individual differences. The implications of these findings and individual differences in goal-setting situations are discussed.     

THE EFFECTS OF SELF-SET, PARTICIPATIVELY SET AND ASSIGNED GOALS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

A government agency wished to define effective supervisory behavior. Fifty-seven government employees participated in the job analysis. The employees were randomly assigned to one of three goal setting conditions, namely, self-set, participatively set, and assigned goals. The task required each individual to brainstorm individually job behaviors that he or she had seen make the difference between effective and ineffective job behavior as a supervisor. Goals were set in terms of the number of behaviors to be listed within 20 minutes. There was no significant difference in goal difficulty between those with participatively set goals and those with self-set goals. Goal difficulty was held constant between the participative and assigned goal conditions by imposing a goal agreed upon by an employee in the participative condition upon an employee in the assigned condition. There was no significant difference among the three goal setting conditions regarding goal acceptance or actual performance. This was true regardless of employee age, education, position level, years as a supervisor, or time employed in the public sector. The correlation between goal difficulty and performance was .62, .69, and .74, respectively, in the participative, self-set, and assigned goal conditions.