IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v149y2018icp17-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attainment versus maintenance goals: Perceived difficulty and impact on goal choice

Author

Listed:
  • Stamatogiannakis, Antonios
  • Chattopadhyay, Amitava
  • Chakravarti, Dipankar

Abstract

We argue that individuals monitor and evaluate attainment and maintenance goals differently. Attainment goals feature a salient current-end state discrepancy that is processed more than the corresponding match for maintenance goals. For maintenance goals, for which a salient discrepancy is absent, contextual influences on goal success/failure receive more processing than for attainment goals. Thus, objectively more difficult attainment goals may be judged as easier than maintenance goals, when they feature sufficiently small discrepancies, or when context information is unfavorable. Study 1 establishes this core effect. Study 2 shows that thought listings capturing the relative processing of the current-end state discrepancy (match) and context information mediate perceived goal difficulty. Study 3 shows that the favorability of context information moderates the effect. Study 4 establishes joint difficulty evaluations as a boundary condition. Studies 5 and 6 (and Appendix B) show that such goal difficulty judgments affect consequential goal choices in real-world financial, workplace, and shopping situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Stamatogiannakis, Antonios & Chattopadhyay, Amitava & Chakravarti, Dipankar, 2018. "Attainment versus maintenance goals: Perceived difficulty and impact on goal choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 17-34.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:149:y:2018:i:c:p:17-34
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.09.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959781730434X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.09.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonard Lee & Dan Ariely, 2006. "Shopping Goals, Goal Concreteness, and Conditional Promotions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(1), pages 60-70, June.
    2. Lee, Angela Y. & Aaker, Jennifer L. & Gardner, Wendi L., 2000. "The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Self-Construals: The Role of Interdependence in Regulatory Focus," Research Papers 1577r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Haiyang Yang & Antonios Stamatogiannakis & Amitava Chattopadhyay, 2015. "Pursuing Attainment versus Maintenance Goals: The Interplay of Self-Construal and Goal Type on Consumer Motivation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 42(1), pages 93-108.
    4. Hinsz, Verlin B. & Kalnbach, Lynn R. & Lorentz, Nichole R., 1997. "Using Judgmental Anchors to Establish Challenging Self-Set Goals Without Jeopardizing Commitment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 287-308, September.
    5. Mento, Anthony J. & Steel, Robert P. & Karren, Ronald J., 1987. "A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 52-83, February.
    6. Kanfer, Ruth & Chen, Gilad, 2016. "Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 6-19.
    7. Amy N. Dalton & Stephen A. Spiller, 2012. "Too Much of a Good Thing: The Benefits of Implementation Intentions Depend on the Number of Goals," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 600-614.
    8. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    9. Louro, M.J.S. & Pieters, R. & Zeelenberg, M., 2007. "Dynamics of multiple goal pursuit," Other publications TiSEM fcfc1f8f-6eae-41bb-af23-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Lynch, John G, Jr & Chakravarti, Dipankar & Mitra, Anusree, 1991. "Contrast Effects in Consumer Judgments: Changes in Mental Representations or in the Anchoring of Rating Scales?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(3), pages 284-297, December.
    11. Huang, Szu-chi & Jin, Liyin & Zhang, Ying, 2017. "Step by step: Sub-goals as a source of motivation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-15.
    12. Minjung Koo & Ayelet Fishbach, 2012. "The Small-Area Hypothesis: Effects of Progress Monitoring on Goal Adherence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 493-509.
    13. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    14. Latham, Gary P. & Locke, Edwin A., 1991. "Self-regulation through goal setting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 212-247, December.
    15. Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Moran, Elizabeth, 2001. "The Evaluability Hypothesis Revisited: Joint and Separate Evaluation Preference Reversal as a Function of Attribute Importance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 216-233, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gutt, Dominik & von Rechenberg, Tobias & Kundisch, Dennis, 2020. "Goal achievement, subsequent user effort and the moderating role of goal difficulty," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 277-287.
    2. Dennis Kundisch & Tobias Rechenberg, 2017. "Does the Framing of Progress Towards Virtual Rewards Matter?," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 59(4), pages 207-222, August.
    3. Tan, Huimin & Lv, Xingyang & Liu, Xiaoyan & Gursoy, Dogan, 2018. "Evaluation nudge: Effect of evaluation mode of online customer reviews on consumers’ preferences," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 29-40.
    4. Yang, Morgan X. & Zeng, Kevin J. & Chan, Haksin & Yu, Irina Y., 2021. "Managing loyalty program communications in the digital era: Does culture matter?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Kanfer, Ruth & Chen, Gilad, 2016. "Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 6-19.
    6. Gould, Stephen J. & Kramer, Thomas, 2009. ""What's it Worth to Me?" Three interpretive studies of the relative roles of task-oriented and reflexive processes in separate versus joint value construction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 840-858, December.
    7. Peggy J. Liu & Kelly L. Haws & Karen Scherr & Joseph P. Redden & James R. Bettman & Gavan J. Fitzsimons, 2019. "The Primacy of “What” over “How Much”: How Type and Quantity Shape Healthiness Perceptions of Food Portions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3353-3381, July.
    8. Shaffer, Victoria A. & Arkes, Hal R., 2009. "Preference reversals in evaluations of cash versus non-cash incentives," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 859-872, December.
    9. Ku, Hsuan-Hsuan & Shang, Rong-An & Fu, Yi-Fan, 2021. "Social learning effects of complaint handling on social media: Self-construal as a moderator," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    10. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    11. Tobias Mutter & Dennis Kundisch, 2014. "Goals as Reference Points: Empirical Evidence from a Virtual Reward System," Working Papers Dissertations 19, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    12. Haipeng (Allan) Chen & Woojin Choi & Yan (Lucy) Liu & Haoying Sun & Fu Liu, 2021. "More or Less? Consumer Goal Orientation and Product Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(1), pages 16-26, June.
    13. Som, Anirban & Dubelaar, Chris & Chowdhury, Rafi M.M.I., 2019. "The effects of goal orientation on goal pursuit," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 322-332.
    14. Yudong Zhang & Huilong Zhang & Chubing Zhang & Dongjin Li, 2020. "The Impact of Self-Quantification on Consumers’ Participation in Green Consumption Activities and Behavioral Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    15. Paulo B. Goes & Chenhui Guo & Mingfeng Lin, 2016. "Do Incentive Hierarchies Induce User Effort? Evidence from an Online Knowledge Exchange," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 497-516, September.
    16. Kim, Kihyon & Jhang, Jihoon & Song, Sangyoung & Shin, Hyun & Song, Sujin, 2024. "Goal proximity effect on collective action: The mediating role of perceived behavioral impact and collective outcome expectancy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    17. Scott G Wallace & Jordan Etkin & Johar GitaEditor & Rajesh BagchiAssociate Editor, 2018. "How Goal Specificity Shapes Motivation: A Reference Points Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(5), pages 1033-1051.
    18. Engel, Christoph & Kurschilgen, Michael, 2020. "The Fragility of a Nudge: the power of self-set norms to contain a social dilemma," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    19. Shavitt, Sharon & Barnes, Aaron J., 2020. "Culture and the Consumer Journey," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 40-54.
    20. Soman, Dilip & Liu, Maggie Wenjing, 2011. "Debiasing or rebiasing? Moderating the illusion of delayed incentives," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 307-316, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:149:y:2018:i:c:p:17-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.