Effect of Goal Difficulty and Positive Reinforcement

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 1990, 12, Effect of Goal Difficulty and Positive Reinforcement on Endurance Performance Robert Weinberg University of North Texas Howard Garland University of Delaware Lawrence Bruya Washington State University Allen Jackson University of North Texas The present investigation tested the interactive effects of goal difficulty and positive reinforcement in the form of verbal persuasion on endurance performance. Two experiments were conducted in laboratory and field settings. In Experiment 1, subjects (n=87) were assigned to a realistic or an unrealistic goal condition and either received or did not receive positive reinforcement while performing the 3-minute sit-up test over the course of 5 weeks. In addition, two control conditions were utilized including a do-your-best group and a no-treatment control group. Results indicated no significant main or interaction effects for the goal setting or positive reinforcement conditions. In Experiment 2, subjects (n= 120) squeezed a hand dynamometer for as long as they could. Experimental conditions were similar to those in Experiment 1 except that the verbal persuasion was i ndiviw since it was group oriented in the first experiment. Results again indicated no sigmficant between-subjects main effects or interactions. Questionnaires revealed that subjects accepted their assigned goals, tried extremely hard, were committed to achieving their goals, and felt their goals were important. Results are discussed in terms of the goal attainability notion (Garland, 1983) and selfebicacy theory (Bandura, 1977). Future directions for research are offered. One of the most popular motivational techniques for enhancing performance and productivity is the setting of goals. Most of the current research on goal setting can be traced back to Locke's (1968) seminal article in which he proposed a model of motivation based upon conscious goals and intentions. Locke's article helped generate a vast amount of research in organizational and academic settings to empirically test the effects of goal setting on task performance. He hypothesized that specific, difficult goals lead to higher levels of task performance than do Robert Weinberg and Allen Jackson are with the Dept. of Kinesiology at the University of North Texas, Denton, TX Lawrence Bruya is with the Dept. of PESLS at Washington State University, Pullman, WA Howard Garland is with the Dept. of Business Administration at the University of Delaware, Newark, DE

2 Effect of Goal Difficulty easy goals, no goals, or do-your-best-goals. In a thorough review of the literature, Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981) reported that 99 of 110 studies they surveyed found support for this hypothesis. These results were found on a variety of laboratory tasks such as card sorting (London & Oldham, 1976), perceptual speed (Mento, Cartledge, & Locke, 1980), anagrams (Rothkopf & Kaplan, 1972), brainstorming (Bavelas & Lee, 1978) and chess problems (Campbell & llgen, 1976). In addition, these laboratory findings have been replicated in field settings using logging crews (Latham & Locke, 1975), typists (Yukl & Latham, 1978), truck drivers (Latham & Baldes, 1975), maintenance technicians (Ivancevich, 1977), and salesmen (Blumenfeld & Leidy, 1969). It should be noted that a recent meta-analysis conducted on goal setting effects from 1966 to 1984 supported Locke et al. 's (198 1) conclusion concerning the effectiveness of specific hard goals in enhancing performance (Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987). In a recent article, Locke and Latham (1985) offered a number of suggestions for applying goal setting to sports and physical activity. They argued for more empirical research in sport, stating that the effects of goal setting on sport performance should result in improvements similar to, if not greater than, those observed in industrial and organizational settings. One of their recommendations was that performers should be encouraged to strive for goals that are difficult and challenging but yet realistic and attainable. Unrealistic goals should be avoided since goals that are too difficult will likely result in continuing failure, which in turn will undermine motivation and subsequent performance. This goal attainability suggestion has clearly had an impact on sport psychology literature in which researchers have strongly recommended to both physical educators and coaches that performance goals should be realistic (Botterill, 1978,1979,1980; Gould, 1986; Harris & Harris, 1984; McClements & Botterill, 1979). Garland (1983) has questioned the goal attainability assumption. He noted that in many laboratory experiments on goal setting, positive relationships have been found between goal difficulty and performance, even when very hard goals assigned to subjects have seemingly been beyond their reach. In some of these experiments, subjects assigned a very difficult goal experienced repeated failure over a considerable number of performance trials, yet no evidence was found of a decline in either motivation or performance (Garland, 1983; Locke, 1966). If repeated failure produces a decrease in motivation, one would expect some type of inverted-u relationship between goal difficulty and performance, but this was not the case. For example, Locke (1982) manipulated 14 levels of goal difficulty with the top 9 levels all beyond the reach of the subject population. Results indicated that performance decrements did not occur among subjects who were assigned goals that were attainable, but subjects with unrealistically difficult goals performed better (although not by a statistically significant amount) than those given more realistic performance standards. In an attempt to test the notion of goal attainability in sport and physical activity, Weinberg, Bruya, Jackson, and Garland (1987) conducted two experiments using physical activity classes. In the first experiment, subjects were matched and randomly assigned to either an easy, moderate, or very diffcult goal condition. In fact, in the very difficult goal condition the goal of an improvement of 45 sit-ups over 5 weeks (for the 3-min sit-up test) had not been achieved by some 250 subjects in prior experiments. Results indicated no significant differences between the three goal-setting conditions, although it is interesting to note that

3 146 1 Weinberg, Bncya, Garland, and Jachon subjects in the very difficult goal condition showed the greatest improvement. A second experiment was conducted that replicated the first and extended it by including a do-your-best control group. In addition, a group given the goal of a 60 sit-up improvement was added to ensure that the goal would be unrealistic and virtually impossible. Results again produced no significant differences between the goal-setting groups although the 60 sit-up group consistently produced the highest levels of performance across the 5 weeks. The most important finding from these two experiments is the lack of evidence that assigning performance goals that are far beyond the reach of individuals can undermine motivation and subsequent performance. In fact, if anything, subjects tended to perform better (although not by a statistically significant amount) when given unrealistically high goals. It appears that subjects do not give up when confronted with an extremely difficult goal, even one that might seem unrealistic or impossible to them. If subjects given unrealistic high goals can continue to maintain their motivation and enthusiasm despite repeated failure, they might reach even higher performance levels than subjects given more realistic goals. One way to enhance motivation while striving toward an extremely difficult goal is through positive reinforcement. The effectiveness of positive reinforcement in terms of increasing expectancies and motivation of young athletes has been demonstrated in a series of studies by Smith, Smoll, and their colleagues (Smith & Smoll, 1983; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979; Smith, Zane, Smoll, & Coppel, 1983). Positive reinforcement can raise an individual's performance expectancies, which are closely tied to the setting and achievement of goals (Bandura& Cervone, 1986). The higher an individual's expectancy, the higher the goal and the stronger the commitment to achieving that goal (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984). In essence, positive reinforcement can serve as an added motivator for individuals attempting to achieve extremely difficult goals and can help them raise their level of performance above that of other individuals whose goals are not as high. In addition, Bandura's theory of self-efficacy (1977) presents verbal persuasion (a form of positive reinforcement) as one of the four major sources of efficacy information. Empirical research in sport psychology (Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979; Weinberg, Gould, Yukelson, & Jackson, 1981) has demonstrated that verbal persuasion can have a significant effect on an individual's efficacy and subsequent performance. Consequently it is hypothesized that positive reinforcement in the form of verbal persuasion should be especially effective for subjects who are given an unrealistically high performance goal, since it can help keep them motivated. And as Locke and Latham (1985) have noted, the higher the goal, the higher the performance-given that the individual has the ability and sufficient motivation. Subjects Experiment 1 Method Subjects were 87 undergraduate students enrolled in fitness courses at a 4-year university. Classes met on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Subjects were matched based on 5 weeks of performing the 3-minute sit-up test and then randomly assigned to one of the following four experimental conditions: (a) realistic goallpositive reinforcement, (b) realistic goallno positive reinforcement, (c) unrealistic goal/positive reinforcement, or (d) unrealistic goal/no positive rein-

4 Effect of Goal Difficulty / 147 forcement. In addition, subjects were also randomly assigned to one of two notreatment conditions including a do-your-best goal condition and a control condition. Thus the design was a one-way including six different groups. Goal-Setting Treatment Conditions All subjects participating in the study completed an informed consent at the outset of the experiment. The first 5 weeks served to provide a baseline from which to match subjects to conditions. In addition, this procedure was used to ensure a decrease in total variability of the scores by eliminating the beginning improvement scores. Goals were assigned after baseline scores were obtained by conferring individually with each subject. No other members of the class were aware of each individual's specific goal, and subjects were instructed not to discuss their goals with their classmates. Realistic Goals. Subjects in this condition were told that their goal was to increase their baseline sit-up score by 30 sit-ups over the course of the next 5 weeks. This improvement score was determined as moderately difficult, since previous research (Weinberg, Bruya, & Jackson, 1985) has demonstrated that approximately 40% of the subjects were able to achieve this goal. It should be noted that subjects were told to strive to at least meet their goal, and that if they did reach their goal they should continue to do as many sit-ups as possible. This eliminates the possible problems noted by Locke and Bryan (1967), who found that many subjects may have stopped when they reached their prescribed goal. It should be noted that specific goals were reflected in absolute terms rather than as percentages of individual performances because performance ceilings are more likely to influence those who scored high on the baseline trial than those who scored low. That is, a 25% goal for a subject with a high score is far greater in absolute terms than the same 25% goal for an individual with a low score. Schmidt (1982) alludes to this by stating that as performance improves, psychological or physiological ceilings present a barrier. As these ceilings are approached, performance improvements tend to be smaller than when performances are at an intermediate or low level. Unrealistic Goals. Subjects in this condition were told that their goal was to increase their baseline performance score by 60 sit-ups over the course of the next 5 weeks. This goal was considered unrealistic since previous research (Weinberg et al., 1987) has determined that less than 1 % of the subjects reached this lofty goal. Positive Reinforcement Subjects in the positive reinforcement condition received verbal persuasion from the instructor during the course of their 3-minute sit-up test at 15-second intervals. This positive reinforcement was provided only during testing sessions (Fridays) and not during practice (Mondays and Wednesdays). A series of 10 encouraging statements were systematically rotated during the 3-minute test. Some examples of these positive statements are, "really looking good," "keep up the good work," "hang in there," "give me just a few more," and "form looks good." The instructor would walk around the room while making these statements, making sure he was seen and heard by all subjects. Subjects in the no-reinforcement condition would not receive any of these positive statements. Subjects in the do-your-best and control groups did not receive any goals

5 148 1 Weinberg, Bruya, Garland, and Jackson or positive reinforcement. The do-your-best group was simply given, in written form, the goal to "do your best," and the control group was not given any goal. All other aspects of the procedure was similar for all groups. Procedure Subjects practiced the sit-ups on Mondays and Wednesdays throughout the 15-session, 5-week (trials) study. Each goal group, including the control conditions, was assigned a comer of a large gymnasium and all practice and assessment sessions were completed in this assigned area. Subjects in each condition worked with chosen partners to complete both the practice and the assessment. To decrease the chances of partnerlgroup interaction, each set of partners was at least 6 feet away from the nearest set of partners during practice and assessment. For the 3-minute sit-up assessment, which was given each Friday, subjects went to their assigned condition comer. The recording partner held the feet of the performing partner and counted each successful sit-up; this has been shown to be a reliable means of collecting assessment data (e.g., Weinberg et al., 1985; 1987). A successful sit-up was defined using the criteria developed by Mathews (1978). Positions were then switched and the procedure was repeated. The 3-minute sit-up was initiated by way of an experimenter-timed countdown. At regular intervals the instructor announced the time remaining, for example "1 minute left," "30 seconds left." At the point of 10 seconds left, a countdown began from 10 and ended at "stop," thus concluding the assessment. As noted earlier, the positive reinforcement and no-reinforcement conditions were randomly assigned to classes rather than to individuals. This was done because the reinforcement was given to the entire class and thus it was impossible to have half the class receive reinforcement and the other half not receive anything. However, since a class represents an intact group, the same instructor taught all the classes and thus reduced the probability that teaching style could be considered a potential explanation for the results. Questionnaire A three-item questionnaire was administered after goals were assigned at the beginning of the experimental period. The first question asked each subject in a goal-setting condition whether he or she accepted the assigned goal, and if not, what was hisher personal goal. The second question asked subjects how difficult would it be to reach their goal, with responses ranging &om 1 (not difficult at all) to 11 (extremely difficult). The final question asked subjects how hard they would try to reach their goal, with responses again ranging from 1 to 11. In addition, each week just prior to testing, subjects were asked how matiy sit-ups they expected to do. At the end of the experimental period, they were asked if they had set any specific goals that differed from their assigned goals, and if they did, to state what these goals were. Also, subjects in the do-your-best and control groups were asked if they had set any specific goals, and if they did, to state the nature of the goals. Perjonnance Results To determine whether there were any initial differences between the groups, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted on the baseline performance. Results

6 Effect of Goal Difficulty / 149 indicated no significant between-group differences. Thus the experimental performance data were analyzed by a 6 x 5 (Conditions x Trials) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the second factor. Results indicated a significant-trials main effect, F(4,324) = 30.97, p<.01, with all groups exhibiting significant improvements over the course of the 5 weeks of sit-ups. No other main effects or interactions reached significance. Means and standard deviations for the test trials are presented in Table 1. Questionnaire Results from the questionnaire completed just after subjects received their specific goals indicated that only 3 of the 87 subjects did not accept the goal assigned to them by the experimenter. A significant difference was found between groups on the question of how hard their goal would be to accomplish, F(3,65) =7.25, p<.01. Newman-Keuls post hoc tests revealed that subjects in the unrealistic goal condition perceived their goals as more difficult (M=9.6) than those in the realistic goal condition (M=7.2). No sigmficant differences were found for the question asking how hard they would try to reach their goal; all subjects (M=9.7) indicated that they intended to try hard. No between-group differences were found for the question asking subjects to state how many sit-ups they expected to do each week just prior to taking their sit-up test. As expected, subjects' expectancies rose steadily throughout the 5-week experimental period in conjunction with their increase in performance. In fact, to determine the relationship between subjects' own weekly expectations and subsequent performance, zero order correlations were calculated. Averaging across the five trials produced a highly significant relationship between subjects' expectancies and their performance (r =.87, p<.001), accounting for approximately 76% of the variance. Results from the postexperimental questionnaire indicated that 52 % of the subjects in the experimental goal-setting conditions set goals in addition to those assigned. However, these were short-term rather than long-term goals. In es- Table 1 Performance Means and Standard Deviations (Experiment 1) Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Overall M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD + 30lPR lPR /NoPR /NoPR Do best Control Overall Note. PR = positive reinforcement; No PR = no positive reinforcement; +30 = improve by 30 sit-ups; +60 = improve by 60 sit-ups.

7 150 1 Weinberg, Bruya, Garland, and Jackson sence subjects appeared to accept their long-term goal but were just setting some short-term goals to help them achieve their final goal. Results revealed no significant differences for the difficulty of goals set by subjects in the unrealistic and realistic goal conditions. No differences were found between the goal-setting conditions in terms of the number of subjects who set their own short-term goals. Results also indicated that 22 % of subjects in the control and do-your-best groups set long-term goals while 41 % set short-term goals. Experiment 2 It was expected that the positive reinforcement group would perform significantly better than the no-reinforcement group and that subjects who were assigned unrealistic goals would demonstrate an increase in performance if given positive reinforcement in the form of verbal persuasion. Neither of these hypotheses were supported, however. It is possible that the group nature of the positive reinforcement made it less salient to the subjects, thus reducing its potential impact. Therefore a second experiment was conducted in a more controlled laboratory setting where the positive reinforcement would be delivered individually to each subject. A hand dynamometer grip-endurance task replaced sit-ups as the primary dependent variable. Goal-Setting Conditions Subjects (n= 120) were randomly assigned to one of four goal setting conditions: (a) moderately difficult goal, 40-second improvement; (b) difficult goal, 80-second improvement; (c) unrealistic goal, 160-second improvement, or (d) do-your-best goal. These improvement goals were based on Hall,Weinberg, and Jackson's (1987) laboratory study testing the effects of goal setting and information feedback on grip endurance. Specifically, in their experiment 68 % of the subjects achieved a 40-second improvement, 40% improved by 80 seconds, and 4% improved by 160 seconds. Positive Reinforcement Positive feedback in the form of verbal persuasion was manipulated in a fashion virtually identical to Experiment 1. The major difference was that there was only one subject in the laboratory and thus the feedback could be individualized (i.e., statements reflected what the experimenter felt would be most appropriate and helpful for each subject) to a much greater extent than in the class situation characterizing the first experiment. Subjects received positive statements from the experimenter approximately every 15 seconds, with the experimenter choosing from 10 predetermined statements. Subjects in the no-reinforcement condition did not receive any statements from the experimenter. Thus the design of the study was a 2 X 4 X 2 (Positive Reinforcement X Goal Condition X Trials) with repeated measures on the last factor. Task and Procedure A Lafayette 4205 hand dynamometer was used to secure an index of general body strength and also to obtain an index of endurance or fatigue. While perform-

8 Effect of Goal Difficulty / 151 ing the three trials, subjects were seated at a table and placed their dominant arm along a line drawn at a 30 angle on the table in front of them so as to standardize the testing procedure. Using the hand dynamometer, subjects were tested for maximum grip strength. Once this was established they had 3 minutes to recover from fatigue. The subjects were then asked to hold a contraction of one-third maximum tension for as long as possible. Once they could no longer hold this contraction at onethird maximum tension, they were given a 20-minute rest period. The rest period was based on Lind's (1983) findings that recovery of the ability to exert maximum tension after fatigue in isometric contractions of one-third maximum tension was 90% complete after 7 minutes and 100% complete after 20 minutes. Following the 20-minute rest period, subjects were given their specific goal based upon initial performance on the first experimental trial. They were then asked to complete a preexperimental questionnaire to determine goal acceptance, goal difficulty, and intended effort. Following this performance trial, subjects were asked to complete a postexperimental questionnaire similar to that in Experiment 1. Pei$omnce Results To determine whether there were any initial differences between the goal setting or reinforcement groups, a 2 x 4 (Reinforcement x Goals) ANOVA was conducted on the baseline perfomces. Results indicated no significant betweengroup differences, and thus a 2 x 4 x 2 (Positive Reinforcement x Goal Condition x Trials) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was conducted. Results revealed a significant-trials main effect, F(l, 1 12) = 8.13, p<.01, with all groups improving their performance from the first to the second trial. No other comparisons reached significance. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Performance Means and Standard Deviations (Experiment 2) Do Best M SD lmprove 40 M SD Improve 80 M SD Improve 160 Overall M SD M SD Trial 1 PR No PR Trial 2 PR No PR Overall

9 152 1 Weinberg, Bruya, Garland, and Jackson Questionnaire In terms of goal acceptance, 97% of the subjects accepted their goal, that is, only 4 of the 120 subjects rejected their assigned goal. No significant differences were found concerning how hard subjects said they would try (M=9.9) or how hard they said they actually did try (M=9.8). Perceived goal difficulty significantly differed among the goal conditions, F(2,112) =6.57,6.01. Newman-Keuls post hoc tests indicated that subjects in the unrealistic goal condition (M=9.9), felt that their goal was going to be harder to accomplish than the subjects in the difficult (M= 8.8) and moderately difficult (M= 7.1) goal conditions (p<.05). No differences were found for the question of how hard they would try to accomplish their goal, with all subjects reporting that they intended to try very hard (M=9.8). The postexperimental questionnaire revealed that subjects perceived that they tried hard to accomplish their goals (M=10.2), although there were no between-group differences. Only 14% of the subjects in the specific goal conditions set their own goal and this did not differ across goal conditions. Finally, results indicated that 24 % of subjects in the do-your-best condition set their own goals, with the average goal being to improve by 58 seconds. Discussion The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the interactive effects of goal setting and positive reinforcement (in the form of verbal persuasion) on endurance performance. Specifically it was hypothesized that verbal persuasion would be particularly helpful for subjects in unrealistic goal setting conditions because it could help maintain motivation and desire in the face of failure to reach one's goal. However, this hypothesis was not supported by the findings of two studies conducted in laboratory and field settings. In fact, results indicated no significant main effects or interactions among any of the goal setting and reinforcement conditions. In addition, none of the experimental conditions performed significantly better than the no-treatment control or do-your-best conditions. In terms of the goal attainability results, the lack of significant differences between the realistic and unrealistic goal groups supports recent research in sport psychology that has failed to demonstrate any undermining effects of setting goals that are seemingly unreachable (e.g., Garland, Weinberg, Bruya, & Jackson, 1988; Weinberg et al., 1987). Subjects in both experiments accepted their goals and perceived that they tried hard to accomplish them, so there does not seem to be any motivational or performance decrement evidenced by setting goals that are virtually unreachable. In fact, in Experiment 1 approximately half of the subjects in the improve-30 condition (realistic goal) achieved their goal whereas not one subject in the improve-60 condition (unrealistic goal) reached the goal. Thus, in the face of failure, subjects were still trying hard and there were no significant differences in performance between realistic and unrealistic goal conditions. What appears to be a more important factor than whether an assigned goal is realistic or not appears to be the subjects' expectations of how well they were going to perform on the next trial. For example, in Experiment 1 a strong correlation of -87 was achieved for relationship between subjects' expectancies and subsequent performance. Thus, despite the fact that subjects in the unrealistic goal condition were not attaining their assigned goals, there were no significant

10 Effect of Goal Difficulty differences between their expectancies of future success and those of subjects in the realistic goal condition. The critical role that expectancies play in attempting to meet lofty goals was noted by Bandura and Cervone (1986), who investigated the relationship between self-efficacy and goal attainment. Specifically, they found that failure to fulfill high goals had variable effects on performance self-efficacy. Many people remained unshaken in their perception of their own self-efficacy, others became less sure of themselves, while still others seemed to lose faith in their capabilities. In essence, the important point is not that failure rouses some self-doubt but, rather, what is the degree and speed of an individual's recovery from adversity? Along these lines, in perusing some of the individual data from subjects in the unrealistic goal conditions, it is interesting to note that several subjects exhibited large performance improvements (i.e., over 40 sit-up improvement) while others showed almost no improvement or even a slight decrease in performance. This is in agreement with Weinberg et al. (1987), who also found large variability in subjects assigned seemingly unreachable goals. Consequently it appears that the effects of unrealistic goals on performance depends at least in part on the nature of the individual. In essence, lofty goals are motivating for some individuals but not for others. The goal of future research in this area is to determine the personality and situational variables that will help us predict who will be helped and who will be hindered by the setting of unrealistic goals. Some of these variables might include self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1986), selfmotivation (Dishman, Ickes, & Morgan, 1980), or competence motivation (Harter, 1982). This would help coaches and educators set the most effective goals for different types of athletes and students. Another surprising finding was the fact that subjects receiving positive reinforcement in the form of verbal persuasion did not produce significantly greater performance improvements than subjects not receiving any reinforcement. In addition, the verbal persuasion was not especially effective for subjects who were assigned unrealistic goals. Some insight into why this might have occurred was derived from postexperimental questionnaires as well as informal comments from some subjects. Most of the subjects in both experiments reported that they tried very hard to reach their goals and performed as well as they could on the sit-up and grip endurance tasks. They noted that although it was nice to hear the positive statements encouraging them to try harder and keep up the good work, it really did not significantly affect their effort since they were already trying extremely hard. Perhaps verbal persuasion would be more effective in situations in which subjects lack enough motivation, since it could help raise expectations (Latham & Saari, 1979). In addition, previous studies in industriallacademic settings (Eden, 1984; Garland, 1984; Livingston, 1969) as well as sport settings (Weinberg et al., 1979; 1981) used verbal persuasion prior to actual performance whereas the present investigation gave feedback during the actual performance. It is possible that subjects were not able to effectively utilize the concurrent feedback provided, and future studies might attempt to provide verbal persuasion prior to performance. In summary, results from both laboratory and field studies support the notion that unrealistically high goals do not necessarily undermine performance. A more heuristic approach that considers the specific personality characteristics of the individual as well as situational and environmental variables needs to be adopted

11 154 / Weinberg, Bruya, Garland, and Jackson if we are to gain a better understanding of how goals operate in sport and physical activity settings. In addition, the present investigation as well as much of the goal setting research conducted in sport and exercise environments has focused on relatively short periods of time. Consequently, more longitudinal field studies, such as those by Burton (1989) and Stitcher (1989) that follow participants in athletics and physical activity over an extended period of time, need to be conducted if we are to provide any external validity and generalizability to the relationship between goal setting and athletic performance. References Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84, Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive mediation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, Bavelas, J.B., & Lee, E.S. (1978). Systems analysis of dyadic interaction: Prediction from individual parameters. Behavioral Science, 23, Blumenfeld, W.S., & Leidy, J.R. (1969). Effectiveness of goal-setting as a management device: Research note. Psychological Reports, 24, 752. Botterill, C. (1978). The psychology of coaching. Coaching Review, 11, 1-8. Botterill, C. (1979). Goal setting with athletes. Sport science periodical on research and technology in sport, BU-1, 1-8. Botterill, C. (1980). Psychology of coaching. In R.M. Suinn (Ed.), Psychology in sports: Methods and ). Minneapolis: Burgess. Burton, D. (1989). The impact of goal specificity and task complexity on basketball skill development. The Sport Psychologist, 3, Campbell, D., & Ilgen, D.R. (1976). Additive effects of task diff~culty and goal setting on subsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, Dishman, R.K., Ickes, W.J., & Morgan, W.P. (1980). Self-motivation and adherence to habitual physical activity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing Pygmalian. Academy of Management Review, 9, Garland, H. (1983). The influence of ability, assigned goals, and normative information on personal goals and performance: A challenge to the goal attainability assumption. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, Garland, H. (1984). Relation of effort-performance expectancy to performance in goalsetting experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, Garland, H., Weinberg, R., Bruya, L., & Jackson, A. (1988). Self-efficacy and endurance performance: A longitudinal field test of cognitive mediation theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 37, Gould, D. (1986). Goal setting for peak performance. In J. Williams (Ed.), Sportpsychology: Mental skills forphysical ). New York: Leisure Press. Hall, H.K., Weinberg, R.S., &Jackson, A. (1987). Effects of goal specificity, goal difficulty, and information feedback on endurance performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9,

12 Effect of Goal Difficulty Harris, D.V., & Harris, B.L. (1984). Sportspsychology: Menml skills forphysicalpeople. New York: Leisure Press. Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, Ivancevich, J.M. (1977). Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, Latham, G.P., & Baldes, J.J. (1975). The "practical significance" of Locke's theory of goal setting. Jouml of Applied Psychology, 60, Latham, G.P., & Locke, E.A. (1975). Increasing productivity with decreasing time limits: A field replication of Parkinson's law. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, Latham, G.P., & Saari, L.N. (1979). Importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(b), Lind, A.R. (1983). Physiology of exercise. New York: Macmillan. Livingston, J.S. (1969, JulylAugust). Pygmalion in management. Haward Business Review, pp Locke, E.A. (1966). The relationship of intentions to level of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, Locke, E.A. (1%8). Toward a theory of task motivation incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, Locke, E.A. (1982). Relation of goal level to performance with a short work period and multiple goal levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, Locke, E.A., & Bryan (1967). Performance goals as determinants of level of performance and boredom. Jouml of Applied Psychology, 51, Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1985). The application of goal setting to sports. Journal of Sport P~y~h~l~gy, 7, Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: Psychological Bulletin, 19, London, M., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Effects of varying goal types and incentive systems on performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Jouml, 19, Mathews, D.K. (1978). Measurement in physical education. Philadelphia: Saunders. McClements, J.D., & Botterill, C.B. (1979). Goal setting in shaping of future performance of athletes. In P. Klavora & J. Daniel (Eds.), Coach, athlete and the sport psychologist. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto. Mento, A.J., Cartledge, N.D., & Locke, E.A. (1980). Maryland vs. Michigan vs. Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task perfonnance. Organizatlzatlonal Behavior and Human Performance, 25, Mento, A.J., Steel, R.P., & Karren, R.J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal-setting on task performance: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, Rothkopf, E.A., & Kaplan, R. (1972). Exploration of the effect of density and specificity of instructional objectives on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, Schmidt, R.A. (1972). Experimental psychology. In R.N. Singer (Ed.), i%epsychorntor domain: Movement behavior. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

13 156 / Weinberg, Bnrya, Garland, and Jackson Smith, R.E., & Smoll, F.L. (1983). Psychological stress in youth sports: Sources, effects and intervention strategies. In N.J. Smith (Ed.), Sports medicine: Health care for young 71-91). Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitivebehavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, Smith, R.E., Zane, N.S., Smoll, F.L., & Coppel, D.B. (1983). Behavioral assessment in youth sports: Coaching behaviors and children's attitudes. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 15, Stitcher, T. (1989). Effects of goal setting on perjbrmance enhuncement in a competitive athletic setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas. Weinberg, R.S., Bruya, L.D., &Jackson, A. (1985). The effects of goal proximity and goal specificity on endurance performance. Jouml of Sport Psychology, 7, Weinberg, R.S., Bruya, L.D., Jackson, A., & Garland, H. (1987). Goal difficulty and endurance performance: A challenge to the goal attainability assumption. Jouml of Sport Behavior, 10, Weinberg, R.S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory, 1, Weinberg, R.S., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., &Jackson, A. (1981). The effect of preexisting and manipulated self-efficacy on a competitive muscular endurance task. Jouml of Sport Psychology, 4, Yukl, G.A., & Latham, G.P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance, goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 31, Manuscript submitted: June 26, 1989 Revision received: September 25, 1989