Psychology_CA

//**Implementation Intention**//
====//The Psychologist Peter Gollowitzer has developed the implementation hypothesis for better goal attainment. The idea is that planning in advance when, where and how one will complete a self assigned goal will lead to greater success. An **implementation intention** is the name of the plan that one creates. Studies have shown (e.g. Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997) that implementation intentions help people initiate working towards their goal and help make the process feel automatic over time. There is an especially large effect size for goals that are harder to complete.//====

//**Goal setting** involves establishing specific, measurable and time-targeted objectives.//
//Goal Setting: A Motivational Theory That Works//

//Edwin A. Locke//
//[]//

=
Physical activity participation: social cognitive theory versus the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior ===== **// [|Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology (JSEP)] //****, [|12] ( [|4] ), 388 - 405. ** ** ABSTRACT: ** Social cognitive theory and the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior were examined in the prediction of 4 weeks of physical activity participation. The theories of reasoned action and planned behavior were supported. Attitude and perceived control predicted intention, and intention predicted physical activity participation. The social cognitive theory variables significantly predicted physical activity participation, with self-efficacy and self-evaluation of the behavior significantly contributing to the prediction. The greater the confidence in participating in physical activity and the greater the satisfaction with present physical activity, the more physical activity performed. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that perceived control and intentions did not account for any unique variation in physical activity participation over self-efficacy. Therefore the social cognitive theory constructs were better predictors of physical activity than those from the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior.

=Goal Attainment =

**Performance as a function of motive strength and expectancy of goal-attainment**

**John W. Atkinson and Walter R. Reitm**

Available online 5 June 2007.
====“Particular motives (Achievement, Affiliation, Power, etc.) are conceived as latent dispositions to strive for certain goal states (aims) that are engaged in performance of an act when the cues of the situation arouse the expectancy that performance of an act is instrumental to attainment of the goal of the motive. The total motivation to perform the act is conceived as a summation of strengths of all the motives that have been aroused by appropriate expectancies of goal-attainment cued-off by the situation. The relationship of achievement motive (as measured by imaginative TAT stories) to performance is shown to be significantly positive when the expectancy that performance is instrumental to producing a feeling of pride in accomplishment is aroused and few if any other expectancies of goal-attainment are aroused.” (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved) ====

**Author Keywords:** MOTIVATION, &; GOAL EXPECTANCY, IN PERFORMANCE; GOAL, EXPECTANCY &; MOTIVATION, IN PERFORMANCE; LEARNING &; MEMORY
===Self evaluation and self efficacy mecahanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems- Bandura and Cervone===

[]
===Implementation intentions and link to goal attainment by Gollwitzer and Sheeran ===

[]
=Goal setting=

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: [|navigation], [|search] || This article **needs additional [|citations] for [|verification].** Please help [|improve this article] by adding [|reliable references]. Unsourced material may be [|challenged] and [|removed]. //(June 2010)// ||
 * [[image:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png width="50" height="39" caption="Question book-new.svg" link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg"]]

Work on the theory of goal-setting suggests that it's an effective tool for making progress by ensuring that participants in a group with a common goal are clearly aware of what is expected from them if an objective is to be achieved [//[|citation needed]//]. On a personal level, setting goals is a process that allows people to specify then work towards their own objectives – most commonly with financial or career-based goals [//[|citation needed]//]. "Goals provide a sense of direction and [|purpose]" (Goldstein, 1994, p. 96). [//[|vague]//] Much [|personal development] writing is based on goal setting, including the work of [|Jim Rohn], [|Zig Ziglar], and [|Douglas Vermeeren]. [[|hide]]
 * [[image:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg/40px-Edit-clear.svg.png width="40" height="40"]] || This article is **written like [|a personal reflection or essay] and may require [|cleanup].** Please [|help improve it] by rewriting it in an [|encyclopedic style]. //(June 2010)// ||
 * Goal setting** involves establishing //specific, measurable and time-targeted// [|objectives] [//[|citation needed]//] . Goal setting features as a major component of [|personal development] literature. Goals perceived as realistic are more effective in changing behavior.
 * ==Contents==
 * [|1] [|Concept]
 * [|2] [|Goal setting in business]
 * [|3] [|Goal–performance relationship]
 * [|3.1] [|Moderators]
 * [|3.2] [|Feedback]
 * [|4] [|Limitations]
 * [|5] [|History]
 * [|6] [|See also]
 * [|7] [|References]
 * [|8] [|Further reading] ||

[[|edit]] Concept
Goals that are difficult to achieve and specific tend to increase performance more than goals that are not.[|[][|1][|]] A goal can become more specific through quantification or enumeration (should be measurable), such as by demanding "increasing productivity by 50%"; or by defining certain tasks that need completing. Setting goals affects outcomes in four ways:[|[][|2][|]]
 * 1) Choice: goals narrow attention and direct efforts to goal-relevant activities, and away from perceived undesirable and goal-irrelevant actions.
 * 2) Effort: goals can lead to more effort; for example, if one typically produces 4 widgets an hour, and has the goal of producing 6, one may work more intensely than one would otherwise in order to reach the goal.
 * 3) Persistence: An individual becomes more prone to work through setbacks if pursuing a goal.
 * 4) Cognition: goals can lead an individual to develop cognitive strategies to change their behavior.

[[|edit]] Goal–performance relationship
Locke et al. (1981) examined the behavioral effects of goal-setting, concluding that 90% of laboratory and field studies involving specific and challenging goals led to higher performance than did easy or no goals.[|[][|5][|]] While some managers [//[|who?]//] would believe it is sufficient to urge employees to ‘do their best’, Locke and Latham have a clear contradicting view on this. The authors state that people who are told to ‘do their best’ will not do so. ‘Doing your best’ has no external referent which implies that it is useless in eliciting specific behavior. To elicit some specific form of behavior from others, it is important that this person has a clear view of what is expected from him/her. A goal is thereby of vital importance because it facilitates an individual in focusing their efforts in a specified direction. In other words; goals canalize behavior (Cummings & Worley p. 368) [//[|vague]//]. However when goals are established at a management level and thereafter solely laid down, employee motivation with regard to achieving these goals is rather suppressed (Locke & Latham, 2002 p. 705) [//[|vague]//]. In order to increase motivation the employees not only need to be allowed to participate in the goal setting process but the goals have to be challenging as well (Cummings & Worley p. 369) [//[|vague]//]. Through an understanding of the effect of goal setting on individual performance organizations are able to use goal setting to benefit organizational performance. Locke and Latham have therefore indicated three moderators which indicate the success of goal setting:[|[][|6][|]] Goal commitment People will perform better when they are committed to achieve certain goals [//[|citation needed]//]. Goal commitment is dependent of: Feedback Keep track of performance to allow employees to see how effective they have been in attaining the goals. Without proper feedback channels it is impossible to adapt or adjust to the required behavior.Task complexity More difficult goals require more cognitive strategies and well developed skills. The more difficult the tasks ahead, a smaller group of people will possess the necessary skills and strategies. From an organizational perspective it is thereby more difficult to successfully attain more difficult goals since resources become more scarce.Employee motivation The more employees are motivated, the more they are stimulated and interested in accepting goals.These success factors are not to be seen independently. For example the expected outcomes of goals are positively influenced when employees are involved in the goal setting process. Not only does participation increase commitment in attaining the goals that are set, participation influences self-efficacy as well. In addition to this feedback is necessary to monitor one's progress. When this is left aside, an employee might think (s)he is not making enough progress. This can reduce self-efficacy and thereby harm the performance outcomes in the long run.[|[][|7][|]]
 * 1) The importance of the expected outcomes of goal attainment and;
 * 2) __**Self-efficacy**__ – one's belief that they are able to achieve the goals;
 * 3) Commitment to others – promises or engagements to others can strongly improve commitment
 * goal-commitment, the most influential moderator [//[|citation needed]//], becomes especially important when dealing with difficult or complex goals. If people lack [|commitment] to goals, they will lack motivation to reach them. In order to become committed to a goal, one must believe in its importance or significance.
 * attainability: individuals must also believe that they can attain — or at least partially reach — a defined goal. If they think no chance exists of reaching a goal, they may not even try.
 * [|self-efficacy]:[|[][|8][|]] the higher someone’s self-efficacy regarding a certain task, the more likely they will set higher goals [//[|citation needed]//], and the more persistence they will show in achieving them [//[|citation needed]//].

[[|edit]] Feedback
The enhancement of performance through goals requires [|feedback] [//[|citation needed]//]. Goal-setting may have little effect if individuals cannot check where the state of their performance is in relation to their goal. [//[|citation needed]//] Note the importance [//[|citation needed]//] of people knowing where they stand in relation to achieving their goals, so they can determine the desirability of working harder or of changing their methods. Advances in [|technology] can make for giving feedback more effectively. [|Systems analysts] have designed [|computer programs] to track goals for numerous members of an [|organization]. Such [|computer systems] may maintain every employee’s goals, as well as their [|deadlines] for achieving them. Separate methods may check the employee’s progress on a regular basis, and other systems may require perceived [|slackers] to explain themselves, and/or account for how they intend to improve the perception.

[[|edit]] Limitations
Goal-setting theory has its limitations. In an organization, a goal of a [|manager] may not align with the goals of the organization as a whole. In such cases, the goals of an individual may come into direct conflict with the employing organization. Without aligning goals between the organization and the individual, performance may suffer. Moreover, for complex tasks, goal-setting may actual impair performance. In these situations, an individual may become preoccupied with meeting the goals, rather than performing tasks. Some people [//[|who?]//] feel that one possible drawback of goal setting is that implicit learning may be inhibited. This is because goal setting may encourage simple focus on an outcome without openness to exploration, understanding or growth. [//[|citation needed]//]

[[|edit]] History
The first empirical studies were performed by [|Cecil Alec Mace] in 1935.[|[][|9][|]] [|Edwin A. Locke] began to examine goal setting in the mid-1960s and continued researching [|goal setting] for thirty years. Locke derived the idea for goal-setting from [|Aristotle]’s form of [|final causality]. Aristotle speculated that [|purpose] can cause action; thus, Locke began researching the impact goals have on individual activity of its time performance.

[[|edit]] References

 * 1) **[|^]** Swezey, Robert W.; Meltzer, Andrew L.; Salas, Eduardo (1994). "Some Issues Involved in Motivating Teams". In O'Neil, Harold F.; Drillings, Michael. //Motivation: theory and research//. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 146. [|ISBN] [|0805812873].
 * 2) **[|^]** Latham, Gary P.; Budworth, Marie-Hélène (2007). "The Study of Work Motivation in the 20th Century". In Koppes, Laura L.. //Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology//. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 366. [|ISBN] [|0805844392].
 * 3) **[|^]** Shalley, Christina E. (April 1995), [|"Effects of Coaction, Expected Evaluation, and Goal Setting on Creativity and Productivity"], //[|Academy of Management Journal]// **38** (2): 501, [] , retrieved 2010-06-01
 * 4) **[|^]** Latham, G.; [|Locke, Edwin A.] (2002), "Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation", //[|The American Psychologist]// **57** (9): 705–17
 * 5) **[|^]** [|Locke, Edwin A.]; Shaw, Karyll N.; Saari, Lise M.; Latham, Gary P. (1981), [|"Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969–1980"], //[|Psychological Bulletin]// ([|American Psychological Association]) **90** (1): 125–152, [] , retrieved 2010-06-01
 * 6) **[|^]** Latham, G.; [|Locke, Edwin A.] (2002), "Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation", //[|The American Psychologist]// **57** (9): 707–9
 * 7) **[|^]** [|Bandura, A.] (March 1993), "Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning", //Educational Psychologist// **28** (2): 119–20
 * 8) **[|^]** Goal-setting theory might define "self-efficacy" as an impression that one has the capability of performing in a certain manner or of attaining certain goals. Or one could define "self-efficacy" as a belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions required to [|manage] prospective situations. Unlike [|efficacy] (defined as the power to produce an effect — in essence, [|competence]), self-efficacy consists of the belief (whether or not accurate) that one has the [|power] to produce that effect. For example, a person with high self-efficacy may engage in a more health-related activity when an illness occurs, whereas a person with low self efficacy may succumb to feelings of hopelessness. Compare David Sue, Derald Wing Sue, Stanley Sue, //Understanding Abnormal Behavior//, 8th edition, p. 214. — Note the distinction between [|self-esteem] and self-efficacy. Self-esteem in this context relates to a person’s sense of [|self-worth], whereas self-efficacy relates to a person’s perception of their ability to reach a goal. For example, take the case of an incompetent rock-climber. Though probably afflicted with poor self-efficacy in regard to rock climbing, this hypothetical person could retain their self-esteem unaffected — most people don’t [|invest] much of their self-esteem in this activity. Compare [], retrieved 2007-11-24
 * 9) **[|^]** [|Cecil alec mace: The man who discovered goal-setting], by Paula Phillips Carsona; Kerry D. Carsona; Ronald B. Headya; DOI: 10.1080/01900699408524960; International Journal of Public Administration, Volume 17, Issue 9 1994, pages 1679 - 1708

[[|edit]] Further reading

 * Locke, Edwin A. (1968) “Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives” //Organizational behavior and human performance//, (3)2: 157-189.
 * Locke, Edwin A. (1996) “Motivation Through Conscious Goal Setting,” //Applied and Preventive Psychology//, 5:117-124.
 * Locke, Edwin A. (2001) “Motivation by Goal Setting,” //Handbook of Organizational Behavior//, 2: 43-54.
 * Robert F. Mager, //Goal Analysis//, 3rd. edition, 1997.
 * Douglas Vermeeren, "Guerrilla Achiever", 1 Edition, 2010


 * ===Caprara, BArbaranelli and Pastorelli (1998) compared the power of self-efficacy and of the BIg Five personality factors to predict academic achievement and peer preference. The Big Five factors nearly all failed to have any predictive power, except that openess predicted academic achievement and peer preference. In contrast, academic and self regulatory self efficacy both predicted academic achievement and peer preference.===**

Perceived social and academic inefficacy contributed to concurrent and subsequent depression both directly and through their impact on academic achievement, prosocialness, and problem behaviors. __In the shorter run, children were depressed__ __over beliefs in their academic inefficacy rather than over their actual academic performances__. In the longer run, the impact of a low sense of academic efficacy on depression was mediated through academic achievement, problem behavior, and prior depression. __Perceived social inefficacy had a heavier impact__ __on depression in girls than in boys in the longer term__. Depression was also more strongly linked over time for girls than for boys.

Self belief in efficacy plays a key role in the self regulation of motivation. __Most human motivation is cognitively generated__. People motivate themselves adn guide their actions anticipatorily by the exercise of forethought. They form beliefs about what they can do. they anticipate likely outcomes of prospective actions. They set goals for themselves and plan courses of action designed to realize valued futures []

Big Five Personality Test []

__Choices regarding behavior__
People will be more inclined to take on a task if they believe they can succeed. People generally avoid tasks where their self-efficacy is low, but will engage in tasks where their self-efficacy is high. People with a self-efficacy significantly beyond their actual ability often overestimate their ability to complete tasks, which can lead to difficulties. On the other hand, people with a self-efficacy significantly lower than their ability are unlikely to grow and expand their skills. Research shows that the ‘optimum’ level of self-efficacy is a little above ability, which encourages people to tackle challenging tasks and gain valuable experience.

__Motivation __
People with high self-efficacy in a task are more likely to make more of an effort, and persist longer, than those with low efficacy. The stronger the self-efficacy or mastery expectations, the more active the efforts. On the other hand, low self-efficacy provides an incentive to learn more about the subject. As a result, someone with a high self-efficacy may not prepare sufficiently for a task.

__Thought patterns & responses__
Low self-efficacy can lead people to believe tasks are harder than they actually are. This often results in poor task planning, as well as increased stress. Observational evidence shows that people become erratic and unpredictable when engaging in a task in which they have low self-efficacy. On the other hand, people with high self-efficacy often take a wider overview of a task in order to take the best route of action. People with high self-efficacy are shown to be encouraged by obstacles to make a greater effort. Self-efficacy also affects how people respond to failure. A person with a high self-efficacy will attribute the failure to external factors, where a person with low self-efficacy will attribute failure to low ability. For example; a person with high self-efficacy in regards to mathematics may attribute a poor result to a harder than usual test, feeling sick, lack of effort or insufficient preparation. A person with a low self-efficacy will attribute the result to poor ability in mathematics.

__Health Behaviors__
Health behaviors such as non-smoking, physical exercise, dieting, condom use, dental hygiene, seat belt use, or breast self-examination are, among others, dependent on one’s level of perceived self-efficacy (Conner & Norman, 2005). Self-efficacy beliefs are cognitions that determine whether health behavior change will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and failures. Self-efficacy influences the effort one puts forth to change risk behavior and the persistence to continue striving despite barriers and setbacks that may undermine motivation. Self-efficacy is directly related to health behavior, but it also affects health behaviors indirectly through its impact on goals. Self-efficacy influences the challenges that people take on as well as how high they set their goals (e.g., "I intend to reduce my smoking," or "I intend to quit smoking altogether"). A number of studies on the adoption of health practices have measured self-efficacy to assess its potential influences in initiating behavior change (Luszczynska, & Schwarzer, 2005). Often single-item measures or very brief scales (e.g., 4 items) have been used. It is actually not necessary to use larger scales if a specific behavior is to be predicted. More important is rigorous theory-based item wording. A rule of thumb is to use the following semantic structure: "I am certain that I can do //xx//, even if //yy// (barrier)" (Schwarzer, 2008). If the target behavior is less specific, one can either use more items that jointly cover the area of interest, or develop a few specific sub-scales. Whereas general self-efficacy measures refer to the ability to deal with a variety of stressful situations, measures of self-efficacy for health behaviors refer to beliefs about the ability to perform certain health behaviors. These behaviors may be defined broadly (i.e., healthy food consumption) or in a narrow way (i.e., consumption of high-fibre food).

__Academic Productivity__
Research done by Sharon Andrew and Wilma Vialle also show the connection between personalized self-efficacy and productivity. They studied the academic achievements of students involved in science classes in Australia and found that students with high levels of self-efficacy show a boost in academic performance compared to those who reported low self-efficacy. The researchers found that confident individuals typically took control over their own learning experience and were more likely to participate in class and preferred hands-on learning experiences. Those individuals reporting low self-efficacy typically shied away from academic interactions and isolated themselves in their studies.

__The Destiny Idea__
Bandura showed that people of differing self-efficacy perceive the world in fundamentally different ways. People with a high self-efficacy are generally of the opinion that they are in control of their own lives; that their own actions and decisions shape their lives. On the other hand, people with low self-efficacy may see their lives as somewhat out of their hands.


 * 1) **[|^]** [|Csikszentmihalyi, M.], //Finding Flow,// 1997
 * 2) **[|^]** [|Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy During Self-Regulated Learning].
 * 3) **[|^]** [|Bandura, Albert] (1977), [|//Social Learning Theory//], Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall, pp. 247, [|ISBN] [|0138167443], []  [//[|dead link]//]
 * 4) **[|^]** [|Self-efficacy defined]
 * 5) **[|^]** Schwarzer, R., Richert, J., Kreausukon, P., Remme, L., Wiedemann, A. U., & Reuter, T. (2010). Translating intentions into nutrition behaviors via planning requires self-efficacy: Evidence from Thailand and Germany. International Journal of Psychology, 45, 260-268. doi: 10.1080/00207591003674479
 * 6) **[|^]** Vialle Wilma. Graduate School of Education, University of Wollongong, Australia, []
 * 7) **[|^]** Karyn Ainsworth, Fall Quarter Seminar Paper: [|What is Teaching? / What is Learning?]
 * 8) **[|^]** Diffusion of the Internet within a Graduate School of Education, 2. Conceptual Framework [|2.3.3.2 Bandura: Efficacy x Value]