User:Sara.currie/sandbox

Goal Characteristics
Motivational: Approach vs. Avoidance Approach goals are focused on the act of reaching a concrete end-state. Because of this, there is a straightforward definition of success and failure, as one either does or does not achieve the given end-state. Avoidance goals are focused on maintaining and/or lengthening the distance from a concrete end-state that is not desired. Thus, there is not as straightforward of a definition of success and failure as one is constantly able to distance oneself further and further from this state. With regards to dieting, approach goals should tend to be more successful because they are more associated with positive outcomes while avoidance goals are more associated with negative outcomes. For example, a goal of losing 20 pounds is an approach goal while a goal of avoiding high blood pressure is an avoidance goal and the former may be more positive and thus more effective. However, there is an exception with avoidance goals that involve getting rid of an already achieved undesirable end-state instead of preventing an unwanted potential outcome. There are limited studies on the effectiveness of these avoidance goals; however one study of smokers trying to quit found that the more "getting rid of something" type of avoidance goal led to more success than a typical avoidance goal. This may translate to dieting as well if the individual is trying to get rid of the feeling of lethargy from eating unhealthy food or get rid of exhaustion from simple activities due to lack of exercise as opposed to avoiding heart disease or avoiding obesity.

Level of Difficulty: Challenging vs. Easy Distinguishing a goal as either challenging or easy is not as clear cut as defining a goal as of either the approach or avoidance type nor is it as important. Rather, previous research has focused on the importance of finding a good middle ground, a goal that is challenging, yet still feasible. Previous research has shown the effectiveness and importance of the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) acronym in setting efficient goals. Studies specific to dieting, however, are showing that feasibility may not guarantee success and that more unrealistic goals may well be just as efficient. Previously unrealistic goals were thought to compromise one's ability to complete a goal, but new evidence is showing that it may actually lead to inspiration and thus better goal operation. An individual may realize that a goal is more unrealistic than anticipated and consequently work to reduce this discrepancy and reach a more attainable state.

Type: Performance vs. Mastery Performance goals involve achieving a concrete outcome while mastery goals involve developing a skill. Performance goals are similar to approach goals in that they are focused on reaching a concrete outcome. Mastery goals, however do not have a concrete endpoint as they can continue to be achieved over time. Main points of difference come into play in the documentation of one's progress during goal operation. Setbacks during a performance goal are more seen as absolute failure to reach the end-state and thus leads to perceptions of inadequacy. Setbacks during mastery goals are not seen as absolute because they can be transformed into information to assist in the continued development of the skill. Studies have not been comparing these goals in a dieting setting; however, the self-efficacy benefits of mastery goals should still be considered when setting dieting goals. A goal to learn and develop healthful eating habits may lead to more successful goal operation than a goal to eat four servings of vegetables per day.

Proximity of the End State: Near vs. Distant A near goal is one that attempts to reduce discrepancy in a shorter amount of time while a distant goal attempts to reduce the discrepancy over a longer period of time. The benefit of near goals is that they make feedback possible to receive sooner and thus opportunities for goal realignment or strategy readjustment are available sooner. More studies are needed to understand the potential effects when considering dieting/health goals.

Level of Specificity: Concrete vs. Abstract Concrete goals refer to goals that are easier to observe. They refer to specific ways to achieve an end-state. Abstract goals are more values-based and do not provide specific direction on how to achieve an end-state. Abstract goals are more focused on the motivations and inspirations facing an individual. More studies need to be done on the comparison of concrete versus abstract goals in health-related settings.

Demographic Differences: Distinguishing challenging versus easy goals is not completely straight-forward. Studies have shown that women as well as younger participants are more likely to have higher expectations when setting goals. This should be considered when setting goals with others. Along with the finding that unrealistic or more challenging goals may lead to goal attainment, studies show that people are likely to set goals with higher expectations even when provided with proof that standard weight loss for such a participant that is lower.

With regards to dieting and health-specific goals, the existing knowledge suggests that the most successful goals will be those that are of one and/or more of the following characteristics: approach, challenging, mastery, near, and concrete. This being said, every individual is different and these are by no means an end all be all guideline for goal setting. A successful characteristic for some may not be as successful for others.