Abstract
Multiple-goal pursuit and conflict between personal life-defining goals can be considered part of everyday business in most individuals' lives. Given the potentially detrimental effects of goal conflict—for example, impaired well-being or poor performance—the literature on goal conflict is surprisingly scattered due to heterogeneous methodological approaches and technical terms. Little empirical research has addressed the conceptualization of goal conflict against the background of differing understandings from a structure-like and a process-like perspective. In the present article, we outline theoretical foundations of goal conflict from two perspectives: a structure- and a process-like perspective. Based on a comparative analysis and integration of these two perspectives, we systematically review empirical studies on goal conflict over 30 years of research. In doing so, we identify and discuss important conceptual dimensions of goal conflict, namely, goal conflict as a cognitive construct and an experiential instance, a focus on goal interrelations or on specific goal properties, and resource vs. inherent conflict, and the potential of these distinctions to further research on goal conflict. Finally, we present major challenges and pose questions that need to be addressed by future research.
Highlights
Specialty section: This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Within our review of theoretical and empirical approaches to the study of goal conflict, we have summarized and highlighted potential paths that may be taken to further our understanding of goal conflict
We should make an effort to develop comparable research designs to promote converging evidence and to arrive at a common ground regarding the conceptualization of goal conflict
Summary
Goals direct rather than energize behavior (Elliot et al, 2002). They can be defined as “internal representations of desired endstates” (Austin and Vancouver, 1996, p. 338) that are structured in terms of means–end relations prototypically depicted in terms of a pyramid (see Figure 1, each side represents a goal system; e.g., Sheldon and Kasser, 1995; Carver and Scheier, 2000; Kruglanski et al, 2002). On the most specific level, end states refer to specific tasks or actions that individuals do to accomplish their goals (down to the point of motor control; Lord et al, 2010) These tasks and actions are referred to as means people act out to attain a goal (Carver and Scheier, 1998). Sometimes people pursue goals that are not derived from the highest-order goals, for example, because they adopt goals from other people These goals may run counter to a person’s self-chosen personal goals (Sheldon and Elliot, 1998) and may not be in accordance with the self ’s core values, plans, and self-defining aspects (Sheldon and Kasser, 1995). Horizontal interference typically refers to instances of goal conflict between goals on comparable levels of abstraction, which will take center stage in our review
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
