목표를 안세우는 것이 더 좋다고? 목표의 역효과!

목표를 안세우는 것이 더 좋다고? 목표의 역효과! Soman, Dilip and Amar Cheema (2004), "When Goals Are Counterproductive" Journal of Consumer Research (목표 달성, 계획 역효과)

 

제 전공인 Consumer Behavior에서 박사자격 시험때 공부했던 논문 소개 들어갑니다! Goal and Motivation(목표와 동기) 범주에 속한 논문을 소개드립니다. 

 

정리하면 "목표를 세웠는데 지키지 못하는 행위는 목표가 없는 사람보다 성과를 떨어트릴 수 있다."입니다.

 

Soman, Dilip and Amar Cheema (2004), "When Goals Are Counterproductive: The Effects of Violation of a Behavioral Goal on Subsequent Performance," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 52-62.

 

• Abstract
  목표에 위반하는 행동이 목표가 없는 사람보다 성과를 떨어트릴 수 있다.
  • A considerable body of research supports the idea that individuals who set behavioral goals perform better than others who set no goals.
    • In this article, we propose that in addition to the positive effects, goals may also have a counterproductive effect.
      • Specifically, we propose that violating one’s goal
        • may cause a deterioration of subsequent performance
        • as compared to individuals who have no goals.
      • When the violation of one’s goal is coded as a failure,
        • it can result in demotivation, negative emotion, and consequently a poorer performance.
    • We report two experiments that demonstrate the counterproductive effects of goals
      • and discuss potential moderators of this effect along with several possible process explanations.
• Takeaways
  • RQ — goal failure → subsequent behavior
    • How does the failure to achieve a goal affect consumers' subsequent behavior?
      • Specifically, we propose that violating one’s goal
        • may cause a deterioration of subsequent performance
        • as compared to individuals who have no goals.
      • When the violation of one’s goal is coded as a failure,
        • it can result in demotivation, negative emotion, and consequently a poorer performance.
  • Two Types of Goals
    • Our results show that goals may not always be beneficial in either of these domains.
      1. Saving Goal (절약) Failre → additional expenses
         • In the consumer spending domain,
           • we find that consumers who have violated their savings goal
             • will be more likely to incur additional expenses
           • as compared to consumers who are just approaching their goal.
      2. Violation of the completion goal → future delays
         • And in situations where individuals are given a task to complete in the future,
           • we find that the violation of the goal (deadline)
             • causes further delays and a poorer performance on the task
           • as compared to participants who had set no goals.
    • This research — focus on all-or-nothing goals
  • Why failure to attain these goals results in poorer subsequent performance?
    1. (easier to code; all-or-nth) failure → perceived self-efficacy↓ → lower performance↓
       • First, we consider research in social psychology,
         • which shows that activities coded as failures (rather than partial successes)
           • are likely to result in lower perceived self-efficacy,
             • which in turn has been shown to result in demotivation,
             • lower goal commitment
               • and consequently lower performance (Bandura and Simon 1977).
         • The easier it is to code an outcome as a failure (given all-or-nothing goals),
           • the more likely it is that an individual will be demotivated to continue striving,
             • and hence their subsequent performance may suffer.
    2. self-monitoring of behavior → 달성 못할 것 같네? 포기!
       • A second stream of research offering a similar conclusion is that in the area of self-monitoring.
       • assessing the effectiveness of goals
         • Researchers have shown that in assessing the effectiveness of goals, individuals compare
           1. the goal
              • established standards of performance (i.e., the goal)
           2. actual performance
              • with feedback about actual performance typically obtained
           3. through self-nomitoring
              • through self-monitoring procedures
                • in which they observe and evaluate their behavior (Locke and Latham 1990).
       • all-or-nothing goals vs graded goal
         • all-or-nth — self-monitoring → track goal inconsistent behavior → detrimental to performance
           • In the case of all-or-nothing goals, this self-monitoring will result in the tracking of behaviors that are inconsistent with the goal, which has been shown to be detrimental to performance (Bandura 1986).
           • For instance, research has shown that tracking of goal-inconsistent behavior actually increased the incidence of smoking in individuals who were attempting to decrease it (see Cochran and Tesser 1996).
         • However, in the case of graded goals,
           • the effect of self-monitoring will be positive
           • and hence is not likely to result in a deterioration of performance.
    3. negative emotion → performance↓
       • Third, the violation of an all-or-nothing goal results in the generation of strong negative emotions (Heath et al. 1999).
         • Prior research suggests that
           • individuals who experience negative emotions
             • engage in emotional repair through distraction
             • and by diverting attention
           • to activities that can generate positive emotion (cf. Connolly, Ordonez, and Coughlan 1997; Garbarino and Edell 1997).
         • Individuals who violate a goal in one particular domain may
           • therefore be motivated to shift resources to an alternate task or goal,
           • hurting performance on the original task.
         • In the real world where consumers have multiple goals,
           • violation of one goal may cause them to shift attention to other,
             • more achievable goals.
    4. reboud effect: violation → completion of suppression (psychic costs) → poor performance
       억압되어있던 자기 통제가 풀려버린다.
       • A fourth stream of research focuses on the so-called rebound effect.
         억압되어있던 자기 통제가 풀려버린다.
       • It has been shown in various domains (e.g., thoughts in adults, obedience in children) that
         • after a period of artificial suppression of a thought or behavior (as might be expected in goals to eliminate undesirable behaviors),
         • the suppressed thought or activity is engaged in more frequently than if there were no attempt to suppress it (Wegner et al. 1987).
       • During the period of suppression
         • individuals resort to distracters
         • and impose psychic costs on themselves
         • to keep the unwanted activity at bay.
           억압 기간 동안 개인들은 원치 않는 활동을 막기 위해 주의를 분산시키고 자신에게 심령비를 부과한다.
           at bay: (사냥감이) 궁지에 몰린
       • However, as these psychic costs require effort,
         • individuals might plan to impose them only for a limited period of time.
       • Once this period is over, these psychic constraints are suddenly released and this facilitates the recurrence of the forbidden activity (Wegner et al. 1987).
       • The violation of an all-or-nothing goal might signal the completion of a period of suppression,
         • and the ensuing rebound would result in poor subsequent performance.
  • Hypothesis
    • Thus, four independent streams of research lead us to hypothesize that
      • H1: The violation of a behavioral goal
        • that constrains an undesirable activity
          • will result in an ultimate deterioration of performance.
        • Once the goal is violated, the previously constrained activity will be
          • engaged in with a greater likelihood
          • than if the goal was yet to be violated.
      • H1: The violation of a behavioral goal that constrains an undesirable activity will result in an ultimate deterioration of performance. Once the goal is violated, the previously constrained activity will be engaged in with a greater likelihood than if the goal was yet to be violated.
  • Example. What the hell effect
    • Consistent with this prediction, Cochran and Tesser (1996) offer the example of a student who was striving to reduce weight using a daily caloric goal.
      • One day, the student realized that the daily quota of calories had accidentally been exceeded and proceeded to consume apple pie.
      • The reasoning was “What-the-hell. Since I'm already over my goal, it doesn't matter.”
      • Cochran and Tesser (1996) refer to this response as a “what the hell” effect.
  • Example. highlighting strategy
    all goal-consistent consumption occurs in one episode
    • Recent research by Dhar and Simonson (1999) is also consistent with hypothesis 1 and the what the hell effect.
      • These authors show that
        • when consumers trade off
          • a goal (like the presence or absence of pleasure)
          • with a resource (like money),
        • they prefer a highlighting strategy
          • in which all goal-consistent consumption occurs in one episode.
      • For example,
        rich appetizer(violated a goal) → tasty entree
        • in selecting an appetizer and entrée, a consumer will select
          1. a tasty appetizer and a tasty entrée on one day
          2. and a tasteless yet healthy appetizer and entrée on another day.
      • Our framework will make a similar highlighting prediction for a consumer whose goal is to avoid eating tasty and unhealthy food.
        • If this consumer has already violated a goal
          • by consuming a rich appetizer,
          • our framework predicts that they might go ahead and consume the tasty entrée anyway.
  • Experiment 1
    • Context
      • Participants were given a hypothetical spending history and saving goal. Under the given situation, the survey asked them about willingness to purchase a concert ticket.
    • Experiment design :
      • 2 (discretionary expenditure: $8k, $7k) x 3 (expenditure: $6.5k, $7.5k, $8.5k)
      • Participants were categorized in 3 groups : (1) Just sufficient surplus, (2) Insufficient surplus, (3) Overspent.
    • Result
      • Willingness to spend for (3) was highest, and (2) was the least. ((3)>(1)>(2))
      • People who violated their saving goal are most likely to spend on additional discretionary expenses.
  • Experiment2
    • Purpose
      • The second experiment differed from the first one in a number of important ways.
        1. First, the experiment was in the temporal (rather than monetary) domain.
        2. Second, it required participants to undertake real investments in time (rather than hypothetical choices) to complete an assigned task.
        3. Third, rather than being given a goal, participants were asked to set their own goals in a guided fashion.
        4. Fourth, we created one control condition in which participants did not generate a goal at all (unlike experiment 1, where all participants had a goal).
    • Context — identify any typographic or grammatical mistakes
    • IV
      • They were randomly assigned into one of three experimental conditions ;
        • proximal goal,
          • 15일 이내로 잡아봐라
        • distant goal,
          • 15~30일 사이로 잡아봐라
        • no goal(control group)
    • Result
      • The result was analyzed by following criterias ; FINISH, GOAL-FINISH, DAYS, ACCURACY
        • FINISH — 30일 이내 끝냄
        • Goal-finish — 본인 목표 전에 끝냄
        • DAYS —total number of days it took
      • Finish rate within 30 days: distant goal > no goal = proximal goal
      • Finish before their personal goal: distant goal > proximal goal
      • Achievers vs Violators vs No Goal
        • Groups
          • Group 1: No goal participants (n = 37, of which 23 finished)
          • Group 2: Proximal goal achievers (n = 10)
          • Group 3: Proximal goal violators (n = 25, of which 12 finished)
          • Group 4: Distant goal achievers (n = 23)
          • Group 5: Distant goal violators (n = 13, of which seven finished)
          • We compared the following five groups of participants:
        • within 30 days: no goal > = goal and fail
          목표 있고 실패한 사람보다 목표 없는 사람이..성공!
        • # of days took to complete the task:
          proximal goal < achieved distant goal < no goal < fail to achieve distant goal = fail to achieve proximal goal
          no goal < violated goal
        • accuracy levels: acheived goal > no goal > violated goal
      • Exploring underlying process: Why did the violation of goals result in poorer performance?
        • “Asking me to set a goal helped me in performing this task.” — achievers > violators
        • Goal Violators' mind
          • Goal violators were also asked to agree with the statements “Once I could not meet my self-imposed goal, I felt no pressure until the final deadline,” and “Once my self-imposed deadline passed and I had not finished, I decided to focus my efforts on other activities and to return to the proofreading task later.”

 

cf) 대학 & 대학원 입시 자기소개서를 "논문 연구"로 풍부하게 만들어 드립니다. 서비스가 궁금하다면?
https://beautifulresearch.tistory.com/39

대학, 대학원 입시 자소서 & 면접에 논문으로 깊이를 더해 드립니다! (입시, 면접, 대학자소서, 대

cf) 해외 논문 톱 저널 순서대로 신속하고 완벽하게 정리해 드립니다 (논문검색, 선행연구, 논문 리서치, 사업 근거 마련) 서비스가 궁금하다면? https://beautifulresearch.tistory.com/40

해외 논문 톱 저널 순서대로 신속하고 완벽하게 정리! #선행논문 #논문검색 #논문리서치 #사업근

— 해당 서비스를 이용하시면 Sci-Hub에 검색하여 다운받기에 용이하도록 DOI도 정리해드립니다
sci hub 참고: https://beautifulresearch.tistory.com/20

cf) 대학원생 스터디 톡방도 운영하고 있습니다 (계획, 기상 등 본인 원하는 것들 인증)! 연구에 외로운 대학원 동료분들 언제든 들어오세요! (https://open.kakao.com/o/gz2ZHI7c)

 

[글쓴이 소개]

서강대학교 수학&심리 복수전공 최우등 졸업

KAIST 마케팅 전공 석사 최우등 졸업, 박사과정 수료

자세한 소개는: https://beautifulresearch.tistory.com/7