By avoiding these problems, and setting goals effectively as described in the previous article, you can achieve and maintain strong forward momentum.
PROBLEMS WITH GOAL-SETTING RESEARCH
Locke, E. A. (1991). Problems with goal-setting research in sports--and their solution. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 311-316.
That goal setting improves task performance is one of the best-established findings in management and psychology. However, there are studies in sport and exercise psychology that have had anomalous results. This article highlights the errors in research that have produced these results.
The failure to manipulate the "no-goal" or "do best" condition so that spontaneous goal setting does not occur. When Ss are given feedback about performance, they often use it to set goals. It has been found that Ss do spontaneously set goals, particularly when given feedback in laboratory settings. When "do-best" Ss, for some reason, do not set goals or are prevented from doing so, the value in setting goals for improving performance can be observed. Thus, it is important that "do-best" Ss do not receive feedback and/or are prevented from doing so in comparative studies.
Measure personal/actual goals. It is imperative to know what personal (actual) goal each person sets in response to the external goal that was assigned. Goal theory asserts that assigned goals affect performance through their effects on personal goals. Knowing that a person is not committed to an assigned goal is not very helpful unless the goal, which was substituted, is known. Ss should be required to record actual goals in writing or on a voice tape to locate the real goals used in studies.
Make specific goals difficult. Specific goals that are actually easy usually lead to lowered levels of performance. To display effects goals must be difficult. A suggested level of difficulty is that no more than 10% of Ss can reach them.
Make sure subjects are committed to achieving the goal. Commitment reveals if an S has accepted an assigned goal. A personal goal indicates what new personalized goal has been set. It is necessary to obtain some indication (usually marking a position on a 5-point commitment scale) to indicate if the goal setting that is being manipulated in the experiment is being used that way.
Baseline. It is important that experimental groups do not start from different baseline levels. One way of controlling this is to perform single-subject studies.
Competition. The effects of competition, which is a variation of goal setting, have not been controlled well. The measurement of this factor is very difficult. If A's goal is to beat B, then A's personal goal becomes B's performance level or better. It is best to use single-subject designs so that goal-aspirations will be reliably set.
Measure self-efficacy, not subjective difficulty or effort. Subjective difficulty is not a very useful measure because it is confounded. It reflects the level of objective goal-difficulty and the S's perception of his or her ability to achieve the goal. Subjective difficulty is correlated positively with objective difficulty but negatively with self-perceived ability. A better measure is self-efficacy, one's confidence in being able to execute a course of action.
Many of these problems can be alleviated by recording a S's plans and reactions and using single-subject designs. It is not appropriate to assume any path of action with goal-setting research because of the common tendency of Ss to personalize and modify externally imposed goals in challenging settings.
EXTERNAL PRESSURES ON GOAL-SETTING
Mossholder, K. W. (1980). Effects of externally mediated goal setting on intrinsic motivation: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 202-210.
Under interesting task conditions, assigning specific difficult goals reduced
subsequent task interest, persistence, and satisfaction with the task. Under boring task conditions, assigning specific difficult goals increased on-task interest.
The negative effects of goal setting on intrinsic motivation seemed to be especially important for those individuals who failed to achieve the prescribed goal.
The assignment of goals may interfere with performance, stimulate it, and may alter the reasons for performing depending upon the nature of self-set goals that exist prior to the imposition of external goal-setting.
Implications
When an individual is very motivated to perform a task, that is, intrinsic motivation is high, the imposition of coach-suggested goals will cause motivation and performance to deteriorate. Before considering imposing goals, such factors as importance of the contest to the athlete, the extent of self-set goals, and the self-efficacy of the individual for the intended performance, need to be considered. If intrinsic motivation is high, the coach should resist suggesting further goals.
On the other hand, when intrinsic motivation is low, coach-imposed goals, particularly if they are agreed upon by the athlete, increase interest in the task or contest.
If a coach does not analyse the status of the athlete with regard to personally set goals, the imposition of goals could be a destructive procedure when an athlete is already highly motivated.
SUCCESS AND FAILURE ATTRIBUTIONS
Bukowski, W. M., Jr., & Moore, D. (1980). Winners' and losers' attributions for success and failure in a series of athletic events. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 195-210.
In boys, success was attributed to internal factors (events over which the athlete has control) while failure was attributed to external events. This reflected the pre-contest orientation of the athletes in terms of the source of their goal setting. It suggests that when formulating contest goals, the factors, which should be emphasized, should be internal.
Implication. Contest goals and plans should focus on events over which the athlete has control. This will yield a success-oriented preparation.