Search

Procrastination is all too familiar to most people. People delay writing up their research (so we hear!), repeatedly declare they will start their diets tomorrow, or postpone until next week doing odd jobs around the house. Yet people also sometimes attempt to control their procrastination by setting deadlines for themselves. In this article, we pose three questions: (a) Are people willing to self-impose meaningful (i.e., costly) deadlines to overcome procrastination? (b) Are self-imposed deadlines effective in improving task performance? (c) When self-imposing deadlines, do people set them optimally, for maximum performance enhancement? A set of studies examined these issues experimentally, showing that the answer is 'yes' to the first two questions, and 'no' to the third. People have self-control problems, they recognize them, and they try to control them by self-imposing costly deadlines. These deadlines help people control procrastination, but they are not as effective as some externally imposed deadlines in improving task performance.

An experiment tested a model in which affect reflects rate of movement (velocity) toward one's behavioral goal. Participants responded to an ambiguous task and received false feedback regarding their performance. The pattern of feedback either remained fairly constant at 50% correct, went from low incidence of correct to 50% correct across trials, or went from high incidence of correct to 50% correct across trials. Self-reported mood change (from before the task to the point at which all groups received 50% correct) took the following pattern: Participants moving from frequent correct to 50% correct (low velocity) changed to less positive mood, whereas those moving from infrequent correct to 50% correct (high velocity) tended to change to more positive mood. Discussion centers on convergence between these findings and those of previous research.

We hypothesized that semester goal attainment provides a route to short-term psychological growth. In an attempt to enhance this process, we randomly assigned participants to either a goal-training program or to a control condition. Although there were no main effects of program participation on later goal attainment, important interactions were found. Consistent with a 'prepared to benefit' model, participants already high in goal-based measures of personality integration perceived the program as most useful and benefited the most from the program in terms of goal attainment. As a result, they became even more integrated and also increased in their levels of psychosocial well-being and vitality. Implications for theories of short-term growth and positive change are discussed, as is the unanswered question of how to help less-integrated persons grow.

The relationship between the content of goals and well-being depends both on whether goals are congruent with inner psychological needs (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996a) and whether goals are supported in one's environment. The current study examines how the pursuit of 6 different goals relates to the psychological well-being of maximum security prisoners. The relative centrality of goals supported in prison, such as physical health, was generally positively related to well-being, whereas the pursuit of goals not supported in prison, such as self-acceptance and affiliation, was negatively related to well-being. Discussion focuses on the importance of considering goals in the context of people's environment.

A laboratory study examined the effects of components of need for achievement on goal commitment and performance. It was predicted that need for mastery and need for work are related to goal commitment. It was also predicted that need for mastery and need for work are more highly related to goal commitment than competitiveness, given the characteristics of the task environment. Finally, goal commitment was expected to mediate the effects of need for mastery and need for work on performance. Fifty-four undergraduate students performed nine trials of a complex task and completed a need for achievement scale composed of four subscales. Support was obtained for the first two predictions, and evidence of a sequential model partially supported the third prediction.

This research examined the hypothesis that self-esteem negatively predicts avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals, as well as the hypothesis that self-esteem mediates the link between indicators of approach and avoidance temperament and avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Study 1 established that self-esteem is indeed negatively related to avoidance (relative to approach) goals, even with social desirability concerns controlled. In Study 2, self-esteem was found to mediate the relation between Neuroticism (conceptualized as an indicator of avoidance temperament) and avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. In Study 3, self-esteem was documented as a mediator of the relation between BAS and BIS sensitivity (conceptualized as indicators of approach and avoidance temperament, respectively) and avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals in the achievement domain. The implications of these findings for our understanding of basic personality dispositions, self-esteem, and personal goals are discussed.

This study tested concurrent influences of personal efficacy, assigned goals, and performance norms on individual performance, mediated by personal goals and task-specific self-efficacy. Seventy-seven undergraduate students performed a verbal task in this laboratory experiment that manipulated assigned goal level (low, high) and information about the performance of others (low, high). Relations among variables, including general, domain, and task-specific self-efficacy, as well as performance were examined through structural equation modeling. Results demonstrated simultaneous effects of assigned goals and normative information on self-efficacy, personal goals, and subsequent performance, as well as mediated effects of domain efficacy on performance.