A formal model of goal revision in approach and avoidance contexts

We developed a formal model of goal revision based on contemporary accounts of decision making under risk and uncertainty. The model assumes that individuals anchor their goal level to their dynamically updated expectations of performance and make adjustments around the anchor point depending on their risk preference. Risk preference was hypothesized to be a function of goal framing and personality. To assess the model, 60 participants were asked to set and revise goals as they completed an Air Traffic Control simulation task. Fitted model parameters indicated that participants pursuing avoidance goals were more risk averse when setting and revising their goals than participants pursuing approach goals. Individuals with high levels of neuroticism were more sensitive to the effects of goal framing than those with low levels of neuroticism. These findings clarify the role of goal framing, risk preferences, and activated traits in goal revision

On the pursuit of multiple goals with different deadlines

This article presents a theory of how people prioritize their time when pursuing goals with different deadlines. Although progress has been made in understanding the dynamics of multiple-goal pursuit, theory in this area only addresses cases where the goals have the same deadline. We rectify this issue by integrating the multiple-goal pursuit model-a formal theory of multiple goal pursuit-with theories of intertemporal motivation and choice. We examine the ability of four computational models derived from this general theory to account for participants' choices across four experiments. The models make different assumptions about how people determine the valence of prioritizing a goal (i.e., by monitoring distance to goal or time pressure), and whether the goal is subject to temporal discounting. In each experiment, participants performed a task requiring them to pursue two goals. Experiments 1 and 2 manipulated deadline and distance; Experiment 3 manipulated deadline and time pressure; Experiment 4 manipulated all three factors. Counter to the predictions of existing theory, participants generally prioritized the goal with the shorter deadline. We also observed weak, but positive effects of distance on prioritization (Experiment 2) and nonlinear effects of time pressure (Experiment 3). The model that best explained participants' decisions assumed that valence is determined by time pressure and the expected utility of a goal is subject to temporal discounting. This new model broadens the range of phenomena that can be accounted for within a single theory of multiple-goal pursuit, and improves our understanding of the interface between motivation and decision making

Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit

Self-regulation is the dynamic process by which people manage competing demands on their time and resources as they strive to achieve desired outcomes, while simultaneously preventing or avoiding undesired outcomes. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge regarding the process by which people manage these types of demands. We review studies in the organizational, cognitive, social psychology, and human factors literatures that have examined the process by which people (a) manage task demands when working on a single task or goal; (b) select which tasks or goals they work on, and the timing and order in which they work on them; and (c) make adjustments to the goals that they are pursuing. We review formal theories that have been developed to account for these phenomena and examine the prospects for an integrative account of self-regulation that can explain the broad range of empirical phenomena examined across different subdisciplines within psychology

Sex Composition of Groups and Member Motivation III: Motivational Losses at a Feminine Task

This study examined the effects of group sex composition on individual effort at a feminine task. A simple sewing task was used. Effort was operationalized as the proportion of trials exceeding median practice performance. It was predicted that subjects would work less hard with a female partner when their partner's gender was congruent with traditional sex roles. As predicted, men performed significantly better with a male partner than with a female partner. Contrary to prediction, women performed significantly better with a female partner than with a male partner. Discussion focused on the likelihood of different motivational mechanisms operating for men and women, and on the implications of the findings