The Effects of Goal Proximity and Goal Specificity on Endurance Performance

JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 1985, 7, 296-305 The Effects of Goal Proximity and Goal Specificity on Endurance Performance Robert Weinberg, Lawrence Bruya, and Allen Jackson North Texas State University The purpose of the present investigation was twofold: to determine if subjects who set specific difficult goals perform significantly better than those who set "do your best" goals, and to examine the importance of goal proximity on the performance of the 3-minute sit-up test. Two experiments were conducted, and subjects (N = 96) in both were matched on ability and then randomly assigned to one of the following conditions: (a) short-term goals, (b) long-term goals, (c) short-term plus long-term goals, and (d) "do your best'' goals. They were tested once a week for either 5 weeks (Experiment 1) or 3 weeks (Experiment 2). Subjects in the short-term goal condition had weekly sit-up goals, whereas those in the long-term goal condition had only an end goal. Performance results from both experiments revealed no significant between-group difference. Questionnaire data indicated that all subjects tried hard, were committed to their goals, and were ego-involved. Manipulation checks revealed, however, that subjects from all conditions were setting their own goals in addition to their experimenter-set goal. Other possible explanations for the lack of differences are couched in the nature of the subject population and the nature of the task. Much human behavior seems to persist over time despite the fact that external rewards are often minimal or nonexistent. When external inducements are sparse, individuals must be self-motivated to sustain their actions and complete their tasks. One important source of self-motivation that is cognitively based is goal setting. Research on goal setting as a motivational strategy has been proliferating so rapidly in recent years that reviews by Latham and Yukl(1975) and Steers and Porter (1974) have become outdated, necessitating a more updated review (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). At present, researchers are interested in goal setting both for academic and organizational reasons. The academic source extends back to the early 1960s and focuses on the associated concepts of intention, task set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a review). The organizational source emanates from management-by-objectives programs, now widely employed in industrial settings (Odiorne, 1978). These two schools of thought have converged in the recent work of Locke (1966, 1978, 1980, 1982), Latham and his colleagues (Latham & Locke, 1975; Latham & Yukl, 1975, 1976), and others who have investigated the effect of goal setting on task performance. By definition, a goal is what an individual is trying to accomplish; it is the object or aim of an action. The basic assumption of goal setting research is that goals are im- Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert Weinberg, Dept. of Physical Education, North Texas State University, Denton, TX 76203.

GOAL PROXIMITY, GOAL SPECIFICITY 297 mediate regulators of human action. Goals operate largely through internal comparison processes and require personal standards against which to evaluate ongoing performance. Although goals can influence behavior, no one-to-one correspondence between goals and action can be assumed because people make errors, or lack the ability to attain their objectives, or subconsciously subvert their conscious goals (Locke et al., 1981). The exact degree of association between goals and actions is an empirical question that has been dealt with extensively in the recent literature on goal setting. Much of this empirical research has set out to test some of the propositions put forth by Locke (1966, 1968) concerning the relationship between goals and task performance. Specifically, Locke argued that specific, difficult, challanging goals lead to higher levels of task performance than either "do your best," easy goals, or no goals. In a recent review of the literature (Locke et al., 1981), 99 of 110 studies were found to support this hypothesis. These results were found in a variety of laboratory studies using tasks such as brainstorming (Bavelas& Lee, 1978), card s&g (London & Oldham, 1976), perceptual speed (Mento, Cartledge, & Locke, 1980), chess (Campbell& Ilgen, 1976), and anagrams (Rothkopf & Kaplan, 1972). In addition, these laboratory findings have been extended in various field studies using logging crews (Latham & Locke, 1975), typists (Yukl & Latham, 1978), and maintenance technicians Ovancevich, 1977), demonstrating the robustness of this effect. Such consistent findings from the industrial and organizational literature have led many coaches, athletes, and physical educators to use goal setting techniques to improve physical performance. However, little empirical research has investigated the effects of goal setting on performance enhancement. Rather, most of the articles on goal setting in sport are designed to provide practical ideas that can assist in maximizing personal growth and development of athletes rather than empirically testing the goal setting performance relationship (e.g., Botterill, 1978, 1979, 1980). Although the literature is sparse, some studies have tested goal setting effects on sport performance. For example, Barnett and Stanicek (1979) found that subjects in a goal setting group improved their archery performance significantly over the course of a 10-week class compared to subjects in a nongoal setting group. Similarly, Botterill (1977) found that subjects who set specific hard goals performed significantly better than subjects who were told to do their best. However, other variables such as who set the goal (subject or experimenter; group or individual) confounded the issue of whether specific hard goals are better than "do your best" goals in Botterill's study. More recently, a field study by Burton (1983) indicated that varsity swimmers who were taught goal setting skills and who were also judged to be good at goal setting improved their times significantly more over the course of a competitive swim season than a comparable control group. Although these studies tend to support the idea that specific hard goals can enhance performance, the literature is equivocal. Specifically, studies by Barnett (1977) and Hollingsworth (1975) found no difference between goal setting and no-goal setting groups performing a novel motor skill. Thus, one purpose of the present investigation was to test if subjects who set specific hard goals performed better than subjects told to do their best. A task requiring great effort, endurance, and persistence (i.e., 3-minute sit-up test) was employed because most previous studies had used more cognitive skillful or perceptual motor tasks (Locke et al., 1981). Another important variable that coaches and athletes should consider when setting a goal is its proximity (i.e., short-term vs. long-term). Unfortunately, little empirical research has been conducted in the sport realm and the research in psychology has been

298 WEINBERG, BRUYA, AND JACKSON equivocal. For example, Bandura (1982) argues that short-term (proximal) goals are particularly important in improving performance because they provide immediate incentives and feedback about an individual's progress, whereas long-term (distal) goals are too far removed in time to summon much effort or diiect one's present actions. In essence, focusing on the distant future makes it easy to slacken efforts in the present. On the other hand, the attainment of subgoals provides indicators of mastery that in turn enhance one's selfconfidence and feelings of competence. Bandura cites his studies on weight loss (Bandura & Simon, 1977) and children solving mathematical problems (Bandura & Schunk, 1981) as evidence for the effectiveness of short-term goals. However, in a recent position paper, Kirschenbaum (in press) argues that the results of these studies are ambiguous. He points out that the results of the Bandura and Schunk study pertaining to the proximity of goals are unclear due to a confounding of different amounts of performance feedback for the various treatment conditions. Similarly, Kirschenbaum notes that the results of the Bandura and Simon study are unclear because the groups that utilized short-term goals also utilized long-term goals. Since longterm goals were utilized by both groups, the study did not provide a true test of the differential effects of long- and short-term goals as was claimed. Thus, the superiority of short-term goals in and of themselves is still in question. In fact, a study by Locke and Bryan (1967) found that on a 2-hour addition task, subjects who set 15-minute subgoals performed slightly poorer than subjects who set only end goals. Due to the equivocal findings concerning the effectiveness of short-term versus long-term goals in the industrial and psychological literatures, and the absence of studies testing this issue in the sport psychology literature, another purpose of the present investigation was to examine the effectiveness of short-term, long-term, and short-term plus longterm goals in performance of the 3-minute sit-up test. Subjects and Design Experiment 1 Subjects were 41 males and 11 females enrolled in fitness courses at a 4-year university. Classes met three times a week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday). Males and females were matched by pre sit-up assessment scores and were randomly assigned to one of four goal setting conditions. These included (a) short-term, (b) long-term, (c) shortterm plus long-term, and (d) "do your best." Treatment Conditions All treatment conditions included goal setting. Long-term and short-term goal estimates were established based on a 20% improvement score over the course of the study. This 20% was determined after months of pilot studies completed in a weight room setting, using time frames similar to that selected for the present investigation (i.e., 5 weeks). In pilot studies, a 20% improvement was found to be realistic and attainable though still reasonably difficult since only about half of the subjects actually reached the goal. Thus, 20% improvement goals were used for this study based on the assumed ability of the subject population to accomplish goals set at this level (Locke et al., 1981). Long-Term Goals. Subjects were given a goal 20% higher than the preassessment sit-up score. On the Monday following preassessment, they were told the numerical value signifying the 20% improvement to be accomplished by the end of the study. No short-

GOAL PROXIMITY, GOAL SPECIFICITY 299 term goals were discussed. The Friday session of each week's treatment was used for assessment rather than for practice. Just before each Friday assessment session and each Monday practice session, long-term goals were reemphasized privately with each subject. Short-Term Goals. Using baseline data from the preassessment sit-up score, a 20% improvement was calculated for each student and divided equally into five 4% increases. To determine each week's specific short-term goal, the subject's actual performance of the previous week was assessed and 4% of the baseline measure was then added. On the Monday of each week and before each Friday assessment period, the shortterm goal was individually reemphasized to each subject in a private conference. No mention was made of long-term goal setting to members of this group. Long-Term Plus Short-Term Goals. Subjects in this group were assigned both longterm and short-term goals as discussed above. Do Your Best. This group acted as the control. On the Monday of each week and before each Friday assessment period, each member of the control group was individually instructed to "do your best." No other long-term or short-term goals were discussed. Task A 3-minute timed sit-up was used as the primary dependent measure. The actual procedure of performing the sit-up was identical to that described by Mathews (1978), except that 3 minutes was chosen as the duration time in the present investigation compared to 1 minute. It was reasoned that the extra time would give subjects an opportunity to be motivated by their specific goal rather than just doing their sit-ups as fast as possible in a minute. In essence, individuals will fatigue before 3 minutes have passed and then rest a bit before they do more. Thus, motivation and goals may be more salient here than just doing sit-ups for 1 minute. Procedure Subjects practiced the sit-ups on Mondays and Wednesdays throughout the 15- session, 5-week study. Each goal setting group was assigned a comer of a large gymnasium, and all practice and assessment sessions were completed in this assigned area. Subjects within each condition worked with partners of their own choice to complete both the practice and assessment. To decrease the chances of partner-group 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, subjects went to their assigned condition comer, the recording partner holding the feet of the performing partner while completing the assessment procedure. The recording partner counted each successful sit-up. Positions were then switched and the procedure was repeated. After assessment, the experimenter moved from group to group to record scores. Initiation of the 3-minute sit-up was by way of an experimenter-timed countdown. At regular intervals the researcher announced the time remaining. A "1 minute left" and "30 seconds left" announcement was made. At the point of 10 seconds left, a countdown began from 10 and ended at "stop," thus concluding the assessment. Questionnaire A questionnaire was administered each Friday just prior to sit-up assessment, providing information on sit-up practice performance during the preceding week. The ques-

300 WEINBERG, BRUYA, AND JACKSON Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Sit-up Performance (Experiment 1) Short-term M SD Long-term M SD Combination M SD Do best M SD Baseline 70.2 16.3 Week 1 79.1 14.2 Week 2 84.0 18.1 Week 3 85.4 18.7 Week 4 87.8 18.2 Week 5 91.6 21.0 tionnaire was designed to check each subject's commitment, importance placed on reaching his or her maximum, level of effort, and satisfaction with his or her performance. All four questions were rated on a 100-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely so). Results To determine if there were any initial differences between the goal setting groups, a one-way ANOVA was conducted on the baseline performance. Results indicated no between-group differences and thus a 4 x 5 (goal group X trials) ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted. Results indicated a significant trials effect, F(4, 48) = 22.38, p <.001, with subjects improving their performance over trials. However, no other main effects or interactions were found. Performance means are presented in Table 1. Questionnaire Subjects were asked to rate their degree of commitment, effort, and satisfaction each week before their testing session, along with how important it was to reach their maximum on the 3-minute sit-up test. These four questions were analyzed by a 4 X 5 (goal group X trials) ANOVA with repeated measures. No significant main effects or interactions were found. However, the group means indicated that, in general, subjects placed importance on reaching their maximum (M = 74%), were quite committed to their goals (M = 71%), and tried hard (M = 72%). Thus, subjects were committed and egoinvolved with their activity and worked hard to achieve their goals. Experiment 2 All parts of Experiment 2 (N = 26 males and 18 females) were identical to those procedures outlined in Experiment 1, except for two changes. The first change involved adding one questionnaire at the end of the study following the final sit-up assessment to

GOAL PROXIMITY, GOAL SPECIFICITY 301 determine if goals were set other than those assigned to a particular condition. The longterm goal condition group was asked if they set short-term goals, while the short-term goal condition group was asked the opposite question. The combination short-tedlongterm goal group was asked if they used both goals equally, while the control or "do your best" group was asked if they set either long-term or short-term goals. The second change stemmed from the fact that approximately 57% of the subjects in Experiment 1 reached or exceeded a 20% improvement. At this level of accomplishment the goal would be considered moderately difficult (Locke et al., 1981). Although this level of goal difficulty should have produced differences when compared to a "do your best" condition, perhaps the goal was not truly a difficult one. To ensure that the goal was indeed difficult, two procedural changes were made. All subjects had to achieve a 20% improvement as in Experiment 1, but Experiment 2 lasted only 3 weeks (9 sessions) as opposed to the first experiment which lasted 5 weeks and had 15 sessions. In addition, all subjects in Experiment 2 participated in 6 weeks of sit-up practice and record keeping prior to preassessment. This procedural change was expected to decrease the total variability of the scores by reducing the beginning improvement scores manifested in the first experiment. In essence, these changes were designed to make a 20% improvement more difficult and thus qualify as a truly difficult goal. Results To determine if there were any initial differences between the goal setting groups, a one-way ANOVA was conducted on the baseline performances. Results indicated no between-group differences and thus a 4 X 3 (goal group X trials) ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted. Results indicated a significant trials effect, F(2, 37) = 12.29, p <.001, with subjects improving their performance over trials. However, no other main effects or interactions were found. Performance means are presented in Table 2. Subjects were asked to rate their degree of commitment, effort, and satisfaction each week before their testing sessions, along with how important it was for them to reach their maximum on the 3-minute sit-up test. These four questions were analyzed by a 4 x 3 (goal group X trials) ANOVA with repeated measures. No significant main effects or interactions were found. However, the means of the groups indicated that, in general, subjects felt it was important to reach their maximum (M = 72%), were quite committed Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Sit-up Performance (Experiment 2) Short-term Long-term Combination Do best M SD M SD M SD M SD Baseline 83.7 22.8 79.3 17.0 80.2 20.3 84.7 24.5 Week 1 85.9 23.0 80.0 20.4 86.3 24.9 90.8 25.2 Week2 90.3 24.1 87.8 20.5 85.6 27.4 93.7 24.0 Week3 92.8 20.0 85.3 23.6 90.9 26.7 97.2 26.6

302 WEINBERG, BRUYA, AND JACKSON to their goals (M = 72 %), were quite satisfied with their performance (M = 67%), and tried hard (M = 70%). Therefore, as in the first experiment, subjects were committed and ego-involved with their activity and worked hard to achieve their goals. To determine if subjects were setting their own goals in addition to their assigned goals, several questions were asked. The results indicated that 83 % of subjects in the "do your best" group set specific goals, 55 % in the short-term goal group also set their own long-term goals, and 50% in the long-term goal group also set their own short-term goals. Thus, it becomes obvious that a substantial number of subjects were setting their own goals in addition to the goals that were assigned. Finally, it should be noted that only 18% of the subjects achieved a 20% increase over the 3-week testing period, as oppbsed to 57% of the subjects in Experiment 1. Thus, the 20% goal was definitely hard in Experiment 2. General Discussion Results of the present investigation indicated that none of the specific hard goal conditions (i.e., short-term, long-term, short-term plus long-term) produced significantly better performance than the "do your best" condition. This is inconsistent with the overwhelming evidence cited in the industrial and organizational literature which indicates that specific hard goals produce superior performance to a "do your best" goal (Locke et al., 1981). There are several possible explanations for this. First, manipulation checks from the second experiment revealed that 83% of the subjects in the "do your best" condition set their own goals despite the fact that they were not given any specific goals by the experimenter. These goals were both short-term and long-term in nature. Thus, in reality the specific-goal groups and the "do your best'' groups were similar in that all were striving to reach some specific goal. A second factor that may have contributed to the lack of between-group differences was the nature of the subject population. That is, subjects had chosen to take a conditioning class and perhaps were already motivated to improve their physical fitness, of which sit-ups is one component. As Locke et al. (1981) note, goal setting operates primarily as a motivational mechanism to influence one's degree of effort and persistence in striving toward a goal. If subjects were indeed highly motivated, then subjects in all groups might have been doing as much as possible to reach their maximum. Two points lend support to this contention. Questionnaire results, for one, indicated no significant differences between the groups on how hard they tried, but levels of effort were expended on the order of at least 70% for all groups. Thus, subjects appeared to be motivated and tried hard to do their best. A second point relating to motivation emanates from informal observations throughout the study. Because human subjects cannot be forced to participate, and several people exercised that option, their task during the 3-minute situp test was to remain in the center of the gymnasium and perform stretching and push-up exercises. No mention of goals or even of doing their best was made to these individuals. However, by the second assessment of the goal setting groups (approximately 2 weeks) they became quite vocal as a group in requesting that their scores be recorded and that they be allowed to take part in the study. Of course, it was too late to make them part of the study, but it does demonstrate the high level of motivation in these conditioning classes.

GOAL PROXIMITY, GOAL SPECIFICITY 303 The third possible explanation for the lack of significant between-group differences stems from the nature of the task itself. Specifically, the 3-minute sit-up task in the present investigation provides immediate, salient, physiological feedback concerning an individual's level of performance, effort, and fatigue. In contrast, although most tasks in the academic, industrial, and organizational literature require effort and provide feedback in terms of productivity (e.g., truck loading, logging, sales, ship loading, card sorting, clerical work, key punching), these tasks do not elicit fatigue or pain cues to the extent a 3-minute sit-up test does. In essence, the salient pain cues inform the subjects that they are trying extremely hard and are approaching their maximum performance. For example, almost all subjects fatigued before 3 minutes elapsed, rested a while, did a few more sit-ups, and continued this cycle until total fatigue. Perhaps learning to cope with pain and fatigue while doing "just a few more" sit-ups might override any thoughts about what goal they were striving for. In fact, Locke et al. (1981) note that when more effort leads to immediate results, goals will only work if they lead the subject to work harder. In addition, motivation was probably further increased by the coaction situation inherent in the experiment. consequently, when one combines the subjects' initial high level of motivation with the salient physiological feedback from pain cues and competition via coaction, the addition of a specific goal may not result in more motivation to work any harder, given that the subjects were exerting maximum effort already. Further research is necessary to empirically test some of these contentions. The other major finding was the lack of any significant differences between the short-term and long-term goal conditions. One reason for this can be found in the manipulation checks from Experiment 2. Specifically, it was found that 50% of subjects in the shortterm goal condition also set long-term goals on their own, while 55 % of subjects in the long-term goal condition also set short-term goals on their own. Thus, the short-term and long-term goal conditions were actually similar to each other as well as to the combination short-term plus long-term goal condition. In addition, the nature of the short-term and long-term goal conditions may have contributed to the nonsignificant findings. In his recent position paper, Kirschenbaum (in press) argues that short-term or subgoals are most effective when combined with relatively nonspecific or moderately specific long-term goals. For example, the most successful weight reducers in Bandura and Simon's (1977) study set specific short-term goals. In addition, Kirschenbaum also concluded that setting highly specific short-term goals may debilitate performance because this can severely limit protracted choice. Several studies have found that highly specific, rigid subgoals do not allow for changes in situational constraints and thereby can lead to frequent failure to achieve subgoals, concomitant adverse self-reactions, and self-regulatory failure (Kirschenbaum, Humphrey, & Malett, 1981; Manderlink & Harackiewicz, in press). In fact, in an exercise setting, a recent study found that children and adults who used flexible (i.e., self-determined) exercise goals exercised substantially more than subjects who used goals that were specifically set by the experimenter (Martin et al., 1984). Similarly, individuals using daily flexible exercise goals showed significantly more weight loss than individuals who had to adhere to more restrictive daily exercise goals (Epstein, Wing, Koeske, Ossip, & Beck, 1982). In the present investigation, subjects were given highly specific short-term goals, highly specific long-term goals, or a combination of both with little opportunity to alter them. Possibly the lack of flexibility in both short- and longterm goal conditions limited their effectiveness, thus producing no significant between-

304 WEINBERG, BRUYA, AND JACKSON group difference. More studies in physical education and sport settings that systematically vary the specificity of both short- and long-term goals are necessary before more definitive statements can be made. In summary, the results of the present investigation do not support the literature from the industrial, organizational, and academic areas in that specific hard goals were not significantly better than "do your best" goals, nor were there significant differences between short- and long-term goal conditions. Although several possible explanations were offered, a note of caution is also in order. That is, many physical educators and coaches have been establishing goal-setting programs based on related literature. However, the results of our two experiments do not support some of the results obtained elsewhere; more research should be conducted in physical education and competitive settings before we can fully accept the results derived in other settings. In particular, if the situation is characterized by a high level of motivation eliciting a high level of effort, and the task itself is one in which fatigue and pain cues are extremely salient, then the setting of specific goals may not be necessary. Perhaps goal setting theory requires some modification in sport settings. It is to be hoped that future empirical research will provide the answers to these important questions. References Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A,, & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. 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 Therapy and Research, 1, 177-193. Bamett, M.L. (1977). Effects of student-led small group and teacher-pupil conference methods of goal-sem'ng on achievement in a gross motor task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Barnett, M.L., & Stanicek, J.A. (1979). Effects of goal-setting on achievement in archery. Research Quarterly, 50, 328-332. Bavelas, J.B., & Lee, E.S. (1978). Systems analysis of dyadic interaction: Prediction from individual parameters. Behavioral Science, 23, 177-186. Botterill, C. (1977, Sept.). Goal setting and performance on an endurance task. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology Conference, Banff, Alberta. Botterill, C. (1978). The psychology of coaching. Coaching Review, 1, 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 applications. Minneapolis: Burgess. Burton, D. (1983). Evaluation of goal setting training on selected cognitions and performance of collegiate swimmers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois. Campbell, D.J., & ngen, D.R. (1976). Additive effects of task difficulty and goal setting on subsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 319-324. Epstein, L.H., Wing, R.R., Koeske, R., Ossip, D., & Beck, S. (1982). A comparison of lifestyle change and programmed aerobic exercise on weight and fitness changes in obese children. Behavior Therapy, 13, 651-665. Hollingsworth, B. (1975). Effects of performance goals and anxiety on learning a gross motor task. Research Quarterly, 46, 162-168. Ivancevich, J.M. (1977). Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406-419.

GOAL PROXIMITY, GOAL SPECIFICITY 305 Kirschenbaum, D.S: (in press). Proximity and specificity of planning: A position paper. Cognirive Therapy and Research. Kirschenbaum. D.S.. Humphrey. L.L.. & Malett (1981). Specificity of planning in adult self-control: An applied investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40. 941-950. LaPorte. R.E., & Nath, R. (1976). Role of performance goals in prose learning. Journal of Educarional Psychology. 68. 260-264. 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, 524-526. Latham. G.P.. & Yukl, G.A. (1975). Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated.and uneducated woods workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 229-302. Latham, G.P., & Yukl. G.A. (1976). Effects of assigned and participative goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 166-171. Locke. E.A. (1966). The relationship of intentions to level of performance. Journal of Applied Psycholog.v, 50. 50-66. Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of rask motivation incentives. Organizarional Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. Locke, E.A. (1978). The ubiquity of the technique of goal setting in theories of and approaches to employee motivation. Academy of Management Review, 3. 594-601. Locke, E.A. 11980). Latham versus Komaki: A tale of two paradigms. Journal of Applied P~hology, 65, 16-23. Locke, E.A. (1982). Relation of goal level to performance with a short work period and multiple goal levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67. 512-514. Locke, E.A., &Bryan. J.F. (1967). Performance goals as determinants of level of performance and boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology. 51, 120-130. Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N.. Saari, L.M.. & Latharn. G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin. 90. 125-152. London. M., & Oldham. G.R. (1976). Effects of varying goal types and incentive systems on performance and satisfaction. Academy of Managemenr Journal, 19, 537-546. Manderlink, G.. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (in press). Proximal vs. distal goal-setting and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personalie and Social Psychology. Mathews. D.K. (1978). Measuremenr in physical educarion. Philadelphia: Saunders. Martin, J.E., Dubben. P.M., Katell. A.D., Thompson, J.K.. Raczynski. J.R., Lake, M.. Smith. P.O., Webster. J.S., Sikora. T., & Cohen, R.E. (1984). 7he behavioral conrrol of exercise in sedenrar?, adulrs: Srudies I rhrough 6. Manuscript under review, V.A. Medical Center, Jackson, MS. 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 periormance. Organizarional Behavior and Human Peg?ormance, 25, 419-440. Odlorne. G.S. MBO (1978, Oct.). A backward glance. Business Horizons, pp. 14-24. Rothkopf, E.Z., & Kaplan, R. (1972). Exploration of the effect of density and specificity of instructional objectives on learning from text. Journal of Educarional Psychology. 63, 295-302. Ryan. T.A. (1970). Intentional beha1.1or: An approach to human motlsarion. New York: Ronald Press. Steers, R.M., & Porter. L.W. (1974). The role of task-goal attributes in employee performance. Ps~cholog~cal Bulletin, 81. 434-452. Yukl, G.A., & Latham, G.P. (1978). Interrklationships among employee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance, goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel psycho log>^. 31, 305-323. Manuscript submirted: December 4, 1984 Re~*ision received: March 19, 1985