Running head: INFLUENCE OF GOALS SPECIFICITY ON COMMITMENT AND SATISFACTION 1 The Effect of Goal Specificity on Goal Commitment and Satisfaction

Consumers make decisions on a daily basis. They decide to save 500 euro (specific goal) for a vacation, or they decide they want a grade between a 7 and a 9 (range goal) for a thesis. This research conducted 2 studies that considered these 2 types of goals and looked for differences between satisfaction and goal commitment. The outcomes of both types of goals were further divided into low and high values. In study 1 participants were in an imaginary diet scenario and had 1 week left to achieve their goal. In study 2 participants looked at a hypothetical outcome of a running contest. Results show that when people are confronted with a high hypothetical outcome, they are more satisfied with a range goal, than with a specific goal. No differences in commitment were found between specific and range goals. Thus, this study suggests that chances are higher that people are more satisfied with the outcome of range goals than those of specific goals. INFLUENCE OF GOALS SPECIFICITY ON COMMITMENT AND SATISFACTION 3 The Influence of Goal Specificity on Goal Commitment and Satisfaction Consumers are often confronted with situations where they have to make a decision whether they want to reengage a goal. For instance, they decide to safe money for the new couch they have been longing for for years. Or finally go the gym to lose the extra pounds they gained from the holidays. Setting goals is important for people. There is something about goals that makes them motivating. Research has found that the perceived progress tends to increase motivation (Kivetz, Urminsky, and Zheng 2006, Soman and Shi 2003, Drèze and Nunes 2011). These studies have looked at the likelihood of completing goals as a function of how much progress has been made towards that goal. For instance, Dreze and Nunes (2011) used frequent flier program data that they obtained from a major U.S based international airline and determined that frequent flyers are more likely to fly as they approach a free flights that they obtained with their Air Miles. Heath, Larrick and Wu (1999) believe that goals are motivating because they serve as reference points. Outcomes are systematically altered as described by the psychological principles in the value function of the Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The Prospect theory shows us that people do not see outcomes as a neutral occurrence; it is either a success or a failure. The reference point marks this distinction. Outcomes are subsequently accompanied by the matching positiveor negative emotions. Losses are also experienced more painful than gains. Consider the example of Janneke and Jip following workout plans that usually involve 25 push-ups. Janneke changes that pattern and tries to do 30 push-ups instead and quits after 35 push-ups. Jip sets a goal of performing 38 push-ups and quits after 35 push-ups. When participants were asked how Janneke and Jip felt, all participants (100%) in this study INFLUENCE OF GOALS SPECIFICITY ON COMMITMENT AND SATISFACTION 4 indicated that Janneke experienced positive feelings and Jip negative feelings. People thus, try to avoid losses and become more motivated to achieve their goals. The last principle of the prospect theory states that outcomes that are more distant from the reference point have a smaller marginal impact on the satisfaction. For example, the pleasure one would have if his or her profit would go from 10 to 20 would be felt more intense than an increase from 110 to 120. The same goes for losses; a loss from 10 to 20 is felt more intense than a loss from 110 to 120. This principle could possibly explain the results of this study. At this moment there is a debate in the literature going on about which type of goal is better: specificor abstract goals. Several studies have looked at the distinction between specific and abstract goals in order to provide clarity. Now both sides have their reasons to believe that that particular type of goal leads to more satisfaction and/or motivation. Proponents for abstract goals found that specific goals can focus attention so narrowly that other important factors may suffer (Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky & Bazerman, 2009). In a well-known study, participants had to watch a video in which basketball players passed a ball around. Participants had to count the number of passes but they entirely failed to notice a man wearing a black gorilla suit in the center of the screen (Simons and Chabris, 1999). Thus, intense concentration caused people to overlook an important element in their visual perception. Everything other than the goal seemed unrelated and this can have harmful consequences. According to Galinsky, Mussweiler, & Medvec (2002) and Neale & Bazerman (1985), specific goals even result in riskier strategies than those who focus on more abstract goals. They demonstrated this by observing negotiators with specific versus abstract goals. Specific goals resulted more often in a failure to reach an agreement. INFLUENCE OF GOALS SPECIFICITY ON COMMITMENT AND SATISFACTION 5 In a similar vein, Schweitzer, Ordonez & Douma (2009) demonstrated that specific goals can even lead to more unethical behavior. In a laboratory they conducted an experiment in which participants had to carry out anagram tasks in 7 experimental rounds and subsequently check on their own work. The latter gave an opportunity to engage in unethical behavior by lying about their performance. The participants in a goal condition created more valid words than participants who were simply doing their best, but they had a higher average overstatement score than the participants in the do-your-best condition. Thus, creating a specific condition by setting a goal promoted unethical behavior. However, there are also studies that indicate that specific goals have their benefits (as opposed to abstract goals). One of these studies was implemented by Locke and Bryan (1967). They investigated the relationship between conscious goals and task performance. Participants were in a complex coordination task where they used foot pedals to illuminate a pattern of green lights to match a pattern of red lights. In this condition one half of the participants got a specific performance goal. This goal for the upcoming trial was determined by a fixed increment that was based on the best score in the previous trial. The other half was told to do their best and did not receive any feedback about their performance. One of their findings was that specific goals resulted in a better performance. Locke and Latham (2009) suggested that the more specific or explicit the goal is, the more precisely performance can be regulated. “Concrete goals provide purposes to otherwise meaningless tasks; it provides a sense of accomplishment and a standard for assessing personal effectiveness” (Locke and Latham, 2009, p. 20). Goals give direction to a person’s pursuit. In another study, Mossholder (1980) researched the effects of goal type on intrinsic motivation. Participants were randomly assigned to two conditions of goal setting (specific versus no goal) and two conditions of initial task interest (interesting versus boring). In the interesting task condition, participants constructed an asymmetrical “erectorcar” based on a INFLUENCE OF GOALS SPECIFICITY ON COMMITMENT AND SATISFACTION 6 model used by Pinder (1976). The boring task consisted of joining one type of Erector set parts into pairs using three nuts and three bolts. These pairs were taken from one big pile of identical parts. Mossholder found that participants without a reference point (goal) were more satisfied about their performance than participants who were given a reference point (5.65 and 4.80 in the interesting job condition). There was more satisfaction amongst these participants despite the fact that goal participants outperformed the no-goal participants by about 15%. So setting a specific goal led to a better performance but less satisfaction than the no-goal condition. Foregoing research by Locke and Bryan (1967) and Mossholder (1980) suggested that specific goals lead to a better performance than abstractor no goals. Locke, Chah, Harrison and Lustgarten (1989) wondered if this effect was still present if goal specificity got separated from goal difficulty. They conducted two experiments to provide support for their hypotheses that goal difficulty affects overall performance whereas goal specificity affects the variability. The first experiment they conducted was a simple reaction time task. The participants saw a red signal light and they had to depress a button when they either got a verbal “ready signal” or in response to the signal light. The time lapse varied randomly between 1 and 5 seconds. The second experiment was an idea generation task. The participants had to list ways in which the undergraduate business and management program could be improved. The results of the studies supported the hypotheses; specific goals lead to less variability in the outcomes whereas more difficult goals lead to a better overall performance. So specific goals per se, do no lead to a better performance. Recent research however, has been investigating the differences between specific and range goals. Scott and Nowlis (2013) examined whether the type of goal that is set has an effect on the likelihood that consumer would want the reengage the goal. They proposed that goals influence consumer goal reengagement through feelings of accomplishment. Prior INFLUENCE OF GOALS SPECIFICITY ON COMMITMENT AND SATISFACTION 7 research on feelings of accomplishment shows that they are likely influenced by two major factors: (1) what they perceive to be possible and attainable and (2) what they aspire to achieve (Latham and Locke 1991). The idea was that range goals offer the best of both worlds in terms of challenge and attainability. The lower range value would seem attainable and the lower range would seem a challenge. Specific goals (a single number) were