Problems With Goal-Setting Research in Sports—and Their Solution

Abstract

The efficacy of goal setting in improving task performance is one of the established findings in management and psychology. The effectiveness of goal setting has been verified by narrative reviews and meta-analyses; further, the generality of goal setting has been established across tasks, subjects, performance measures, time spans, countries, settings (laboratory and field), levels of analysis (individual, group, and organizational), and methods of setting goals (self-set, assigned, and participative). The research to date, based on over 500 studies, is summarized and integrated in Locke and Latham's (1990) recent book. In view of this, it is anomalous that several studies on goal setting in sport and exercise psychology have obtained null results, despite the expectation that goal setting should work in these realms just as well as, if not better than, in other realms (Locke & Latham, 1985). However, if one reads the studies that obtained null results closely, it is clear that these results are due to methodological flaws, many of which have been made repeatedly. In this article, I summarize the main errors in methodology that have been made in these studies and suggest antidotes. The first 3 points are major flaws that I have observed in goal-setting research in sports. Additional, if less fundamental, problems that should be mentioned follow (4-7). 1. Manipulation failure of best condition: One of the most common findings in goal-setting research is that specific, difficult goals lead to better performance than do-your-best goals. I noted over 20 years ago that when subjects are given feedback about their past performance, they may use it to set specific goals (Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). This means that subjects in the do-best condition, if given feedback, may set specific goals for themselves unless they are specifically prevented from doing so. The methods of preventing goal setting by these subjects are (a) to withhold feedback, or (b) to give feedback based on work periods of varying lengths but whose lengths are not revealed to the subjects so that they cannot calculate their average rate (e.g., per minute; Locke et al., 1968). When one or more of these precautions are not taken, do-best subjects, especially in laboratory settings, typically do set goals.