Goal motivation changes as people move closer to their target, according to Stanford’s Szu-chi Huang and Ying Zhang of University of Texas.
Their work built on Heinz Heckhausen’s earlier studies of goal motivation.
In the first stages of effort, multiple paths toward the goal makes the target seem attainable, noted Huang and Zhang.
This perception of “self-efficacy,” belief in their ability to achieve a goal by applying effort and persistence, provides motivation to continue goal striving and reduce emotional arousal, reported Stanford’s Albert Bandura.
In contrast, when people are close to achieving a goal, a single goal path provides greater motivation. This observation is consistent with Clark Hull’s finding that motivation increases closer to the goal.
A single route to the finish reduces the “cognitive load” of considering different approaches, supporting Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper’s finding that “more choice is not always better.”
These stages of goal pursuit are characterized by differing mindsets.
“Deliberative Mindset” describes considering work toward a goal whereas “Implemention Mindset” characterises planning the execution steps toward a goal, according to NYU’s Peter Gollwitzer, Heinz Heckhausen, and Birgit Steller of University of Heidelberg.
Huang, a former account director at advertising giant JWT, evaluated customer loyalty behaviors to achieve incentive goals.
In one study, she issued two versions of an invitation to join a coffee-shop loyalty program.
Half of the participants received a “quick start” to earning a free coffee by providing them with half of the required credit stamps when they began.
Half of these volunteers had multiple ways to earn additional reward stamps: Buying coffee, tea or any other drink.
More than 25% of this multi-option/”quick start” group joined the loyalty program.
The other half of the “quick start” volunteers could earn more stamps in only one way: Buying a beverage.
Significantly more of the customers with a single option joined the loyalty program.
The comparison group received no stamps.
Half these customers could earn more stamps in several ways and more than 1/3 registered for the loyalty program.
Remaining participants had the single option of purchasing more beverages, and registered significantly less frequently for the loyalty program.
This difference between goal pursuit behaviors when close to a consumer goal is applicable to personal goals like fitness, weight reduction, smoking cessation, and confident public speaking.
Motivation toward a goal is also determined by:
- Goal value,
- Expectancy of success, based on probability, difficulty, sufficiency, necessity,
according to Tel Aviv University’s Nira Liberman and Jens Förster of Jacobs University of Bremen and Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Similarly, Huang and Zhang demonstrated the motivational impact of choice.
They compared behaviours of yoghurt shop customers who were required to purchase six flavors in a specific order compared with any order, to receive an incentive.
Volunteers with fewer choices were more likely to achieve the goal of a free yoghurt.
“…relatively rigid structures can often simplify goal pursuit by removing the need to make choices, especially when people are already well into the process,” explained Huang.
A practical application is that nonprofit organizations can benefit from changing contribution options when a fund-raising target is nearly met.
At that time, fewer and simpler ways to donate are likely to result in more participation in the campaign.
-*How do you maintain motivation when you are close to achieving a goal?
- Still Fulfilling Your New Year’s Resolutions?
- Clearly-Imagined Future Self Enables More Effective Goal Planning
- Recasting Unattainable Goals into Refreshed Options
- Hacking Human Behavior: “Tiny Habits” Start, Maintain Changes
- How to Change Habits: Jamming the “Flywheel of Society”
- “Grit” Rivals IQ and EQ to Achieve Goals
- Working toward Goals with “Implementation Intentions”
- Consider All Your Options at Once, Be Happier with Choices: Minimize “Quest for the Best” Bias
- Decision Maximizers, Satisficers and Potential Bias
- Paradoxical Bias against Innovative Ideas in the Workplace
- Reframing Non-Comparable Choices to Make Them Simpler, More Satisfying