The Relationship Between Goal Proximity and Specificity in Bowling: A Field Experiment

The Sporf PsychoIogisf, 1990, 4, 145-154 The Relationship Between Goal Proximity and Specificity in Bowling: A Field Experiment Steven H. Frierman University of North Carolina at Greensboro Robert S. Weinberg and Allen Jackson University of North Texas The purpose of this investigation was twofold: to determine if individuals who were assigned specific, difficult goals perform better than those assigned "do your best'' goals, and to examine the importance of goal proximity (longterm vs. short-term) on bowling performance. Subjects were 72 students enrolled in two beginning bowling courses at a 4-year university. They were matched according to baseline bowling averages and then randomly assigned to one of four goal-setting conditions. A 4 x 5 (Goal Condition X Trials) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor revealed a significant goal condition main effect, with the long-term goal group improving more than the do-your-best group. No other performance comparisons reached significance. Questionnaire data revealed that subjects in all three numerical goal conditions rated their level of confidence significantly higher than the doyour-best goal group in Week 1, but the long-term goal group displayed a significantly higher level of confidence than the other three goal groups in Week 4. All other questions indicated that all groups tried hard and were committed to and accepted their goals. Although educators and psychologists have generally agreed that motivation is important for learning, the most effective motivational strategy remains unclear. Effective application of motivational techniques depends upon knowledge of the individual and environmental factors as well as familiarity with the methods and strategies for motivating individuals (Carron, 1980). One technique that both researchers and practitioners have found effective in eliciting comrnitment, perseverance, dedication, and effort required for long-term self-motivation is that of goal setting (Silva & Weinberg, 1984). A goal can be defined as the object, aim, or endpoint of action (Kirschenbaum, 1985). In essence, it is that which an individual describes as an accomplishment being sought (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). The employment of Steven H. Friennan is with the Dept. of Exercise and Sport Science at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412. Robert S. Weinberg and Allen Jackson are with the Dept. of HPER at the University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203.

146 Frierman, Weinberg, and lackson goals provides both focus and direction of one's activities (Locke & Bryan, 1969). Additionally, goals permit the individual to continuously measure performance through internal comparison processes using personal standards to evaluate ongoing pursuits. In recent years, the adaptation of goal setting as a motivational strategy has increased dramatically throughout academic and industrial settings. The academic source extends back to the early 1960s with a myriad of published research focusing on the learning and development of cognitive skills. Studies have dealt with attitudes toward reading (Gaa, 1970) and arithmetic (Kennedy, 1968), methods of educational instruction (Carpenter, 1959), and prose learning (Laporte & Nath, 1976). The organizational source emerges from a desire to increase productivity in the work force, with much of the empirical research designed to test the goal setting principles established by Locke (1966, 1968). Particularly, Locke has argued that specific, hard, challenging goals produce higher levels of task performance than either do-your-best goals, easy goals, or no goals. In an extensive review of literature (Locke et al., 1981) it was found that 99 of 110 studies supported this hypothesis. Laboratory tasks included figure selection, card sorting, perceptual speed, and chess. From a more applied perspective, field research incorporating goal setting principles has involved a variety of tasks including logging, driving trucks, dieting, maintenance work, and returning survey questionnaires (see Locke et al., 1981, for a review). As a result of the consistent findings from the industrial and organizational literature, many coaches, athletes, and physical educators have begun to employ the techniques of goal setting to improve physical performance. The use of goal setting as a motivational strategy has become quite wmrnon throughout the sporting domain, despite a limited amount of research examining the effects of goal setting on sport performance. The studies conducted provide some support for Locke's theory. For example, Barnett and Stanicek (1979) found that subjects in a goal setting group improved their performance in archery significantly more than the non-goal-setting group over a 10-week period. Similarly, BotteriU (1977) discovered that subjects who set specific, hard goals perfonned significantly better than subjects who were told to do their best. More recently, Burton (1983) found that varsity swimmers who had learned goal setting skills early in the season improved their times significantly more than their counterparts (a control group) over the course of a competitive season. Although the above studies provide support for Locke's view-that specific, hard goals enhance performance-the sport psychology literature is marked by. its equivocality. Specifically, studies by Barnett (1977) and by Hollingsworth (1975) revealed no differences between goal setting and non-goal-setting groups using juggling as a motor task. Similarly, Weinberg, Bruya, and Jackson (1985), employing a 3-minute sit-up task, found no differences in performance between specific-goal groups and a do-your-best control group. It should be noted, however, that a postexperimental questionnaire found that 83 % of the subjects in the do-your-best condition set their own goals, thus confounding the results of the study. The findings of Weinberg et al. (1985) were later replicated by Hall and Byrne (1988), who incorporated the identical task along with similar subjects and created empirical support for these results. As a result of the conflicting data on goal-setting principles within a sport setting, the first purpose of the present in- I I I

Bowling: A Field Experiment 147 vestigation was to determine whether assigned, specific, challenging goals increase performance more than do-your-best goals. Another important concept in the goal setting literature deals with the proximity of goals. According to Bandura (1977), short-term (proximal) goals are particularly important because they mobilize one's effort and direct one's behavior changes by providing immediate incentives and feedback about his or her progress. In addition, proximal goals present a potential situation for mastery, which in turn may enhance one's self-confidence and feelings of competence. Consequently, long-term (distal) goals appear too far removed to summon adequate effort or guidance in directing an individual's present actions. Bandura cites his studies on weight loss (Bandura & Simon, 1977) and on children solving rnathematical problems (Bandura & Schunk, 1981) as evidence for the effectiveness of short-term goals. However, Kirschenbaum (1985) argued that the results of the Bandura and Schunk (1981) study were clouded due to the different amounts of performance feedback given to the various treatment conditions. Furthermore, Kirschenbaum suggests that the "dimension of choice" may be the variable to help explain how moderately specific and relatively distal plans facilitate self-regulation. In fact, in a study conducted by Kirschenbaum, Humphrey, and Molett (1981) directed at improving study habits, students involved in a distal (long-term) planning regimen (monthly goal) studied more frequently and improved their grade point averages significantly more than either daily or weekly subgoal groups. Although the importance of short-term goals has been cited within the sport literature (Carron, 1980; Gould, 1985; O'Block & Evans, 1984), little empirical evidence supports this claim. Recent studies by Weinberg, Bruya, Longino, and Jackson (1988), Hall and Byrne (1988), and Weinberg et al. (1985) have all found no differences between short-term and long-term goal groups. It should also be mentioned, however, that all of these studies have incorporated some form of an endurance task (e.g., sit-ups) in their assessment of performance. According to Weinberg et al. (1985), endurance tasks provide immediate, salient physiological feedback concerning fatigue and pain cues that may take precedence over thoughts of goal achievement. In addition, Locke et al. (1981) have stated that goals will only work if they encourage increased effort. If physical ceilings (limit of pain tolerance) prevent further effort, then the recent findings from sport are hardly surprising (Hall & Byrne, 1988). Furthermore, perusal of the sport psychology literature on goal setting has found only three studies investigating the relationship between goal setting and fine motor sports: Barnett and Stanicek (1979) with archers, and Miller and McAuley (1987) and Burton (1989), both with basketball skills. Therefore the second purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of long-term versus short-term goals on bowling performance. Subjects and Design Method Participants were 45 novice and 27 intermediate bowlers (31 males, 41 females) enroiled in two beginning bowling courses at a 4-year university. Ages typically ranged from 18 to 22 years. Classes met on Tuesdays and Thursdays at an offcampus bowling site. Individuals were matched according to baseline bowling

148 Frierman, Weinberg, and Jackson averages and then randomly assigned to one of four goal setting conditions: shortterm, long-term, short-term-plus-long-term and do-your-best. Baseline Phase and Treatment Conditions Bowling performance during the 8 weeks of class prior to the study was used to establish a foundation by which hard, challenging, and realistic goals could be set. The average improvement from Weeks 1-4 to Weeks 5-8 was 5.67. By virtue of these findings, it was felt that a 10-pin improvement from baseline averages over a 5-week period would meet the criteria of a hard, challenging goal as set forth by Locke. With the exception of the do-your-best group, all goal setting conditions were given a goal of 10 pins above baseline averages in accordance with specified conditions. Participants bowled four games each week for a period of 5 weeks, totaling 20 games. At the start of each week, individuals were told of their bowling performance and goal outcome and were given a written statement regarding weekly and total averages during the study. In addition, all were asked to write down their goal and refer to it after each game. It should be noted that all participants in the numerical goal conditions were instructed to improve by at least the assigned goal to avoid slacking off in case they reached their goals prior to the target week. Short-term Goals. This group was given five goals, one for each week. The first goal was a two-pin increase from baseline bowling averages, ascending to four pins in Week 2, six pins in Week 3, eight pins in Week 4, and ten pins in Week 5. For example, if a person has a baseline average of 100, his or her first week's goal would be 102 and the second week's goal would be 104. The reason for the steady increase in goals regardless of the previous week's performance was to establish both a consistent and positive direction from week to week. Long-term Goals. Participants were given one numerical goal of improving 10 pins above baseline performance to be determined at the completion of 5 weeks and/or 20 games. After each week they were told of their bowling average during the study and were reminded of their goal. Since individuals improved at a rate of 5.67 pins from Weeks 1-4 to Weeks 5-8 during the first 8 weeks in which averages were established, it was felt that a 10-pin increase over a 5-week period would satisfy the criteria of a realistic and challenging goal as set forth by Locke. Long-term Plus Short-term Goals. Individuals in this group were assigned both short-term and long-term goals in the same manner as in the above two conditions. Do-Your-Best Goals. This group served as a control. Individuals were given the same information as the above mentioned groups with the exception of being assigned a numerical goal. Instead, participants were told to simply do their best. Procedure Fifteen minutes prior to activity, all 72 participants met individually with the experimenter and were informed of the length of the study (5 weeks), amount of games to be bowled (20), and their own bowling averages prior to the study (nurnber of games bowled, total average, and averages during 4-week intervals). Individuals were then given their goals and asked to keep them confidential to avoid contaminating future results. Each goal-settingcondition group bowled four games

Bowling: A Field Experiment 149 each week, two on Tuesday and two on Thursday, and each was given three adjoining lanes in order to minimize social interaction between groups. Questionnaire Directly after being assigned performance goals, individuals were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing goal difficulty, effort, confidence, acceptance, and reality of the assigned goal. Those in the short-term and those in the short-termplus-long-term conditions were administered this questionnaire every week, immediately after being given their weekly goal. This same questionnaire was distributed to the long-term group and to the do-your-best group at the early (Week 1) and midpoint (start of Week 4) segments of the study in order to compare cognitive states between groups. Data from Weeks 2, 3, and 5 were omitted from any comparative analyses since only the short-term and short-term-plus-long-term goal groups filled out questionnaires during this period. Questions were on a 1- to 11-point scale, from 1 = not at all to 11 = very much. Performance Results To determine whether there were any initial differences between goal setting groups, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted on baseline performance. Results revealed no between-group differences, and thus a 4 X 5 (Goal Condition X Trials) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the last factor was conducted for improvement scores. Improvement scores were obtained by subtracting the bowling average of the previous week from the present week (i.e., Week 2 - Week 1). A significant goal condition main effect, F(3,69) = 130.5, p<.02, indicated that the long-term goal group (M= 14.38) improved more than the do-your-best group (M= 6.26). No other comparisons reached significance. Performance means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. When comparing goal success rate, the short-term group achieved their goals (Weeks 1 to 5) at an average rate of 70.2 % while the short-term-plus-long-term group reached Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Bowling Performance Short-term M SD Long-term M SD Combination M SD Baseline 108.59 18.77 Week 1 116.90 19.13 Week2 117.39 21.14 Week 3 119.39 21.11 Week 4 718.88 21.65 Week 5 118.26 16.47 Average 118.16 17.77

150 Frierman, Weinberg, and Jackson their short-term goals at a rate of 69.6%. In addition, the short-term-plus-longterm group reached their long-term goal 56% of the time. Conversely, the longterm group achieved their one distal goal at a rate of 74%. Questionnaire To determine whether there were any between-group differences on the five-item goal questionnaire, a 4 X 2 (Goal Condition x Week 1 and Week 4 Trials) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was conducted. Results produced a significant goal condition main effect for confidence, F(3,69)= 12.69, 6.001, with short-term (M=8.89), long-term (M=9.90), and short-term-pluslong-term (M= 8.72) goal groups rating confidence significantly higher than the do-your-best goal group (M=7.14). A significant trials effect was also found, F(3,69) = 8.00, p<.001, indicating that subjects increased their confidence from Week 1 to Week 4. More important, the results indicated a Goal Condition X Trials interaction, F(3,69)=6.44, p<.001, and post hoc simple main effects revealed that all three numerical goal groups had a significantly higher level of confidence than the do-your-best goal group in Week 1; however, in Week 4 the long-term goal group displayed a significantly higher level of confidence than each of the other three goal conditions. A significant Goal Condition x Trials interaction effect was also found for the goal difficulty variable, F(3,69) =5.02,6.01, and post hoc simple main effects revealed that although there were no differences between the goal-setting groups in Week 1, the long-term group perceived their goal to be significantly less difficult than any of the other goal groups in Week 4. In addition, a third Goal Condition x Trials interaction effect for effort, F(3,69) =2.87, p<.05, was discovered. Post hoc simple main effects revealed that the short-term goal group increased their level of effort from Week 1 to Week 4, while the do-your-best goal group decreased in effort. Although no significant changes in effort were found for the long-term or the short-term-plus-long-term goal groups, inspection of means indicated that both groups maintained a higher level of effort over time than either the short-term or the do-your-best goal groups. All other questions indicated that participants accepted their goal and felt it was realistic. A postexperimental questionnaire revealed that although all groups accepted and displayed a high level of effort and commitment toward their goals, 50% of the short-term, 35 % of the long-term, 22 % of the do-your-best, and 13 % of the short-term-plus-long-term subjects set goals that were numerically higher than the goals assigned. No goals were set lower than the ones assigned. (See Table 2 for questionnaire means and standard deviations.) Discussion The findings of the present investigation indicated that the long-term goal group improved their performance significantly more than the do-your-best goal group during the 5 weeks of bowling. Although no other significant differences in performance were found between any of the other goal conditions, a practical point of view suggested that the short-term-plus-long-term goal group improved and averaged consistently higher (M= + 12.57; 120.88) than the do-your-best group (M= + 6.23; 1 15.49). No major performance differences were found between the short-term (M= +9.57; 118.16) and the do-your-best (M= +6.26; 115.49) goal groups.

Bowling: A Field Experiment 151 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations From Goal Questionnaires Short-term Long-term Combination Do-your-best M SD M SD M SD M SD Confidence Week 1 9.17* 1.69 9.32* 1.57 8.75* 0.93 5.50 3.70 Week 4 8.61 1.54 10.47* 1.12 8.69 1.45 8.78 2.29 Difficulty Week 1 4.56 3.01 4.53 2.67 4.94 2.08 4.72 3.29 Week 4 6.78' 3.42 3.16 2.34 6.06" 2.86 5.61" 3.05 Effort Week 1 10.17 1.34 10.58 0.77 10.25 1.77 10.39 1.04 Week 4 10.56 0.71 10.53 1.61 10.44 1.09 9.78 1.44 Reality of goal Week 1 9.83 1.15 9.63 1.38 9.63 1.41 10.17 1.54 Week 4 9.17 1.42 10.00 1.56 9.31 1.40 9.61 1.58 Goal acceptance 100% 18118 19/19 16116 18118 One possible explanation for the success of long-term goals over do-yourbest goals may be the feedback that accompanies a long-term goal. Individuals in the long-term goal condition always knew how near or far they were toward their distal goal and had the flexibility to alter their immediate goal strategies since their goal was in the future. In contrast, individuals with do-your-best goals have no apparent strategies for increasing performance or achieving a goal. Performance feedback cannot be given to an individual who has a do-your-best goal that would determine whether or not the goal has been achieved. In addition, the bowler is faced with a possible dilemma. Does bowling a high score always indicate doing your best? Or for that matter, does bowling poorly always mean lack of effort? In terms of goal proximity, the results failed to reach significance; however, improvement means revealed that the long-term goal group improved the most from baseline to composite weeks 1-5 average (M= 14.38), followed by the short-term-plus-long-term goal group (M= 12.57) and finally the short-term goal group (M=9.57). A potential reason for these fmdiigs may be the perceived difficulty of attaining proximal goals. Questionnaire data revealed that as the weeks progressed, both the short-term and the short-term-plus-long-term groups felt that their proximal goals were becoming increasingly difficult whereas the long-term goal group perceived their distal goal to be only moderately difficult. A possible reason for this might be couched within the overall design of the study. Although the long-term goal group had 5 weeks to maximize efforts toward goal attainment, the short-term and the short-term-plus-long-term goal groups had to divide their attention toward weekly subgoals, with each goal be-

152 Friemzan, Weinberg, and Jackson coming increasingly harder as the weeks progressed. In addition, both proximal goal groups were confronted with the reality of short-term failure while the longterm group was not. If the long-term goal group had a bad game or even a few bad games in the early weeks of bowling, they still had the majority of games left to raise their average and ultimately achieve their goal. Conversely, the shortterm and the short-term-plus-long-term groups had only four games to reach their proximal goal each week. If they had a bad game, the probability of achieving their weekly goal was greatly diminished, not to mention the negative connotations associated with failure. More important, when the short-term and shortterm-plus-long-term individuals failed to reach a weekly goal, they were confronted with a new goal that was two pins higher than the previous week. While Bandura (1981) and Locke (1966, 1968) have both emphasized the use of subgoals as an indicator of task mastery in which the individual can build confidence and perceive frequent success through progress toward a long-term goal, success in the sporting world is not always evident. There's no guarantee that an individual will perform well enough in the early stages of performance to achieve his or her goal. The question then arises, what happens if the person fails the short-term goals? Would he or she then lose confidence? In other words, can the presence of short-term goals produce an added pressure during poor performance to the point that it inhibits future performance? The results of this study tend to support that claim. As the percent of goal achievement diminished from \ week to week in both the short-term and short-term-plus-long-term groups, participants' ratings of confidence as well as their bowling performance declined. In addition, when comparing the success rate of the assigned distal goal, the longterm goal group achieved at a rate of 74% while the short-term-plus-long-term goal group succeeded only 56% of the time. In summary, the results of this study tend to support the use of long-term t goals in bowling. The long-term goal group improved their bowling averages significantly more than the do-your-best goal group over a 5-week period. Al- I though these findings are inconsistent with some of the sport psychology research on goal setting, it is important to remember that prior studies producing no effect of goal setting on performance have dealt primarily with gross motor endurance tasks (e.g., sit-ups). In contrast, studies dealing with fine motor as well as sportspecific tasks such as archery and swimming have produced more positive results. I It is important to note, however, that since the control group approached a 10-pin improvement by Week 5, perhaps the assigned 10-pin goal for the experii mental goal conditions might not have been difficult enough. Thus it might be important for future studies to focus on altering goal difficulty in order to deter- I mine its effect on various types of sport performance. For instance, would striving toward either moderate or extremely difftcult subgoals enhance performance more than striving toward simple subgoals? In addition, future directions for research should consider expanding on the research conducted by Giannini, Weinberg, and Jackson (1988), Duda (1985), and Nicholls (1984) in which the relationship between individual goal orientations (i.e., task mastery, competition) and various goal conditions were examined. For example, if an individual had a competitive goal orientation and was assigned a mastery goal, how would performance be affected? Would goal orientations change over time? If so, how? These questions warrant future consideration. I

References Bowling: A Field Experiment 153 Bandura, A., & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598. Bandura, A., & Simon, K.M. (1977). The role of proximal intentions in self-regulation of refractory behavior. Cognitive nerapy and Research, 1, 177-193. Barnett, M.L. (1977). Effects of two methods of goal setting on learning a gross motor task. Research Quarterly, 48, 19-23. Barnett, M.L., & Stanicek, J.A. (1979). Effects of goal setting on achievement in archery. Research Quarterly, 50, 328-332. Botterill, C. (1977, Sept.). Goal setting andperfomnce on an endurance task. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology conference, Banff, Alberta. Burton, D. (1983). Evaluation of goal sening training on selected cognitions andpe$ormance of collegiate swimmers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois. Burton, D. (1989). The impact of goal specificity and task complexity on basketball skill development. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 34-47. Carpenter, C.R. (1959). What are the most effective methods of improved instruction with special reference to individual work programs? In C.K. Smith (Ed.), Current issues in higher education. Washington, DC: Association for Higher Education. Carron, A.V. (1980). Motivating the athlete. In W. F. Straub (Ed.), Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete behavior (2nd ed.) @p. 38-48). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement. Duda, J.L. (1985). Goals and achievement orientations of Anglo and Mexican-American adolescents in sport and the classroom. International Journul of Intercultural Relations, 9, 131-155. Gaa, J.P. (1970). Goal-setting behavior, achievement in reading, and attitude toward reading associated with individual goal-sdng conferences (Tech. Report 142). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning. Giannini, J., Weinberg, R.S., &Jackson, A. (1988). The effects of mastery, competitive, and cooperative goals on the performance of simple and complex basketball skills. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 408-417. Gould, D. (1985). Goal setting for peak performance. In J.M. WiIIiams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak pelfomnce. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Hall, H.K., & Byme, T.J. (1988). Goal setting in sport: Clarifying recent anomalies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 184-198. Hollingsworth, B. (1975). Effects of performance goals and anxiety on learning a gross motor task. Research Quarterly, 46, 162-168. Kennedy, B.J. (1968). Motivational effects of individual conferences and goal-setting on performance and attitudes in arithmetic. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education, Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare. Kirschenbaum, D.S. (1985). Proximity and specificity of planning: A position paper. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 489-506. Kirschenbaum, D.S., Humphrey, L.L., & Molett. (1981). Specificity of planning in adult self-control: An applied investigation. Jouml of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 941-950. Laporte, R.E., & Nath, R. (1976). Role of performance goals in prose learning. Journal of ~ucational Psychology, 68, 260-264.

154 Frierman, Weinberg, and Iackson Locke, E.A. (1966). The relationship of intentions to level of performance. Jounull of Applied Psychology, 50, 50-66. Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation incentives. Organizational Behavior and Hwnan Performance, 3, 57-89. Locke, E.A., & Bryan, J.F. (1969). The directing function of goals in task performance. Organizational Behavior and Hum Pe$ormance, 4, 35-42. Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological hlletin, 90, 125-152. Miller, J.T., & McAuley, E. (1987). Effects of a goal-setting training prop on basketball free-throw self-efficacy and performance. me Sport Psychologist, 1, 103-1 13. Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346. O'Block, F.R., & Evans, F.H. (1984). Goal setting as a motivational technique. In J.M. Silva & R. S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 188-196). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Silva, J.M., & Weinberg, R.S. (1984). Psychological foundations of sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Weinberg, R.S., Bruya, L.D., & Jackson, A. (1985). The effects of goal proximity and goal specificity on endurance performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, '7, 296-305. Weinberg, R.S., Bruya, L.D., Longino, J., &Jackson, A. (1988). Effect of goal proximity and specificity on endurance performance of primary-grade children. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 81-91. Manuscript submitted: January 25, 1989 Revision received: November 15, 1989