Effect of goal difficulty on performance of aerobic, anaerobic and power tasks in laboratory and field settings.

Bar-Eli, Michael ; Levy-Kolker, Noa ; Tenenbaum, Gershon 等

The present investigation examined the effect of goal difficulty on performance of aerobic, anaerobic and power tasks in both laboratory and field settings. Male subjects (n = 104) performed the tasks of hill run, horizontal bar, parallel bars, rope-climbing, 3000m run, obstacle course and dynamometer grip, whereas female subjects (n = 80) performed the tasks of hill run, rope-hanging, situps, 2000m run, obstacle course, and dynamometer grip. All subjects were given pre and post questionnaires assessing goal acceptance, goal commitment, effort and goal difficulty. Subjects were matched on baseline performance and randomly assigned into four experimental groups ("easy", "moderate", "hard" and "very hard" goal difficulty levels), and two control groups ("do" and "do your best" conditions). Results revealed that performance scores on all physical tasks did not vary among all experimental conditions and controls. In addition, questionnaires revealed few significant differences between males and females relating to the setting of goals. However, it was found that more than 50% of subjects in the control conditions spontaneously set goals for themselves. Results are discussed in terms of the goal attainability assumption, intrinsic motivation, and psychological gender differences. Future research directions are recommended in terms of potential mediating variables. In addition, more longitudinal designs are encouraged.

Goal setting has been shown to be a powerful motivational technique for enhancing performance and productivity, and has been found effective in improving long-term self-motivation through eliciting commitment, perseverance, dedication and effort (Locke & Latham, 1990). Researchers have defined a goal as the object, aim or endpoint of action, and is that which an individual describes as an accomplishment being sought (Kirschenbaum, 1985; Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham, 1981). Goals provide focus and direction of one's activity, and permit the individual to continuously measure performance through internal processes of comparison, using subjective standards to evaluate ongoing pursuits (Frierman, Weinberg & Jackson, 1990; Locke & Bryan, 1969).

Research on goal setting has been substantially influenced by Locke (1966, 1968), who suggested a motivational model based upon conscious goals and intentions. Locke (1968) hypothesized that specific, difficult and challenging goals lead to higher levels of task performance in comparison to easy goals, do-your-best goals, and no goals. His ideas generated intensive research, aimed to empirically examining the effects of goal setting on task performance. Thus, goal setting as a motivational strategy has been increasingly investigated throughout academic and organizational-industrial settings, in both the laboratory and field. Laboratory tasks included brainstorming, chess problems, card sorting, perceptual speed and anagrams (Bavelas & Lee, 1978; Campbell & Ilgen, 1976; London & Oldham, 1976; Mento, Cartledge & Locke, 1980; Rothkopf & Kaplan, 1972), whereas field studies used salesmen, maintenance technicians, truck drivers, logging crews and typists (Blumenfeld & Leidy, 1969; Ivancevich, 1977; Latham & Baldes, 1975; Latham & Locke, 1975; Yukl & Latham, 1978). Locke et al. (1981) extensively reviewed the relevant literature, and concluded that the results of most studies (99 out of 110) are in favor of Locke's (1968) hypothesis, with a more recent metaanalytic investigation (Mento, Steel & Karren, 1987) supporting this conclusion.

As a result of these consistent findings in the organization literature, the use of goal setting as a motivational strategy has become quite common in the domain of sport and exercise. However, the sport psychology literature on this issue is marked by both a limited amount of research examining the effects of goal setting on performance, as well as by its equivocality (Frierman, et al., 1990). Many sport-psychologists have been influenced by Locke and Latham's (1985) proposal, that the performance effects of goal setting are at least similar to, if not more effective, in sport than in organizational-industrial settings. For example, Locke and Latham (1985) recommend performers to strive for difficult and challenging, yet realistic and attainable, goals. Realistic challenging goals are considered motivationally superior to the use of unrealistic goals, because goals that are unreachable will result in continuing failure. This, in turn, would lead to a drop in motivation and subsequent performance would also deteriorate. In essence, reported failure could lead to a condition of learned helplessness (Maier & Seligman, 1976) in which the individual simply gives up trying to improve. Accordingly, coaches and physical educators have been repeatedly advised to use realistic performance goals in applied settings (Botterill, 1978, 1979, 1980; Cox, 1985; Harris & Harris, 1984; McClements & Botterill, 1979; Singer, 1986).

The goal attainability assumption has been strongly challenged both outside ad inside the domain of sport and exercise. Garland (1983), for example, noted that positive relationships have often been found between goal difficulty and performance in laboratory experiments, even when the assigned goals have been beyond the subjects' reach. Furthermore, even if subjects repeatedly experience failure over a considerable number of performance trials as a result of being assigned to very difficult goal conditions, no decline in motivation or performance is observed (Garland, 1983; Locke, 1966). Locke (1982) even found that subjects with unrealistically hard goals performed slightly (although not significantly) better than those assigned to more realistic goal conditions with performance decrements not occurring among subjects given attainable goals. Thus, no empirical support has been found in these investigations for the inverted U-relationship between goal difficulty and performance. In essence, research has not shown a motivational decrease through repeated failure in the attempt to attain unrealistically difficult goals.

Recent research in sport psychology has also consistently failed to demonstrate any undermining effects of setting goals that are seemingly unreachable (Garland, Weinberg, Bruya & Jackson, 1988; Weinberg, Bruya, Jackson & Garland, 1987; Weinberg, Bruya, Garland & Jackson, 1990). The lack of significant differences between realistic and unrealistic goals conditions in these investigations also strongly challenges the goal attainability assumption in the domain of sport and exercise behavior. It seems that in the face of failure, subjects are still trying hard; it appears that they do not give up when confronted with extremely difficult goals, even when the goals are subjectively perceived as unrealistic or impossible. No motivational or performance decrements are observed for unreachable goals, with subjects even occasionally reaching higher performance levels in comparison to subjects given more realistic goals (Garland et al., 1988; Weinberg et al., 1987, 1990). Thus, although the importance of goal attainability has been repeatedly cited within applied sport-psychological literature, little empirical evidence supports this claim.

Investigations on goal difficulty effects in sports thus far have employed a quite narrow range of physical tasks, namely, performing sit-ups (Garland et al., 1988; Weinberg et al., 1987, 1990) and squeezing a hand dynamometer (Weinberg et al., 1990). However, in a study on motivation and physical performance, Tenenbaum, Geron, and Gruzinovski (1986) demonstrated that whether a task was aerobic or anaerobic made a significant difference in the effects of goal setting on subsequent performance. In addition, since goals enhance performance by increasing an individual's effort as well as persistence at the task (Locke & Latham, 1990), they should be especially effective on endurance and strength tasks. Endurance type (aerobic) activity is characterized by performance of a submaximal exercise of long duration using energy generated via aerobic pathways. Anaerobic tasks consist of relative short-time effort with intense physical effort, relying on the anaerobic pathways for energy release. In addition, while performing aerobic tasks, subjects have time to evaluate the goals set for them by the instructor. However, this is avoided completely when an anaerobic (or power) task is performed since the evaluation of goal setting is done prior to rather than during the task performance. It is assumed, therefore, that the type of physical task may be sensitive to the extent of perceived difficulty on physical performance using a variety of aerobic, anaerobic and power tasks in both laboratory and field settings. In addition, the present investigation will focus on the effect of goal setting on immediate task performance. Most previous studies have investigated the effects of goal setting on performance over the course of some designated time period where several experimental trials were completed. Although optimally, goals should be used to help guide and motivate athletes' behavior and performance over a period of time, this is not always the case. In many instances, coaches and athletes only set goals for an immediate, upcoming competition. Therefore, from an applied perspective, it appears important to determine if goal setting can have an immediate impact on a single performance trial.

Method

Sample

Subjects were 104 males and 80 females ranging in age from 18-21, who were participating in a two-month physical fitness training camp in the army, took part in the study. During the camp, males were examined on 7 physical tasks and females on 6 tasks. In the first stage, subjects were pre-tested on each of the tasks. Based on their baseline performance on each task separately, subjects were matched then randomly assigned to one of six goal setting conditions.

Physical Tasks

The physical tasks for males and females were comprised of aerobic, anaerobic, and power in nature. The tasks given to males and females differed substantially, according to the regulations of the army. Males performed the following tasks:

Hill run - This consisted of a 200-meter sprint on a sandy hill with a 33 degree slope. The time was measured in seconds.

Horizontal bar - Subjects performed pull-ups successively from a hanging position. In each pull-up the subject was required to bring his chin above the bar and then return to a hanging position with both hands in full extension. The score was the number of complete pull-ups performed.

Parallel bars - Subjects performed push-ups while on the parallel bars. The subject was required to start from a full extension position, then drop down to a 90 degree elbow position, and return to a full extension position. The score was the number of successful push-ups.

Rope-climbing - This task required subjects to climb up a 6-meter long hanging rope using hands only. The score was the time elapsed from the start to touching the bar on top of the rope.

3000 m. run - Subjects ran 3000 meters as fast as possible in a field setting.

Obstacle course - The obstacle course consisted of a 600 m. run, followed by 15 obstacles such as 1.80 m. wall, 6 m. rope, 10 m. crawling device, 15 m. balanced beam located 1.5 m. above ground, etc., spread along 400 m. distance. Following the obstacles the subject was required to run 500 m. The task was performed with 10 kg. weight carried on the back. The score consisted of the time required to complete the course.

Dynamometer - A Lafayette 4205 dynamometer was used to measure hand-grip strength. Subjects were asked to perform the task with the dominant hand using maximal strength 3 times, 5 minutes apart. The best score was used as their basal strength measurement. They were then asked to hold the dynamometer 40% of their basal strength capacity for as long as they could. Their score was recorded in seconds.

Females were examined in the following tasks:

Hill run - This was the identical task to that of males.

Rope - Subjects were required to hang on a rope with two flexed hands for as long as possible. Time duration was measured.

Sit-ups - The subject had to lie on her back while knees were flexed at 90 degrees, and both hands behind the neck. She was required to perform abdominal flexion by moving the upper body forward until the elbows touched the knees, and then return to the starting position. The number of complete flexions during one minute was counted.

2000 m. run - This was the identical task given to males but reducing the distance from 3000 m. to 2000 m.

Obstacle course - This was similar to the obstacle course for the males, but omitting the 600 m. run before and 500 m. run after the obstacles.

Dynamometer - The same procedures were followed as with the males. Subjects in the experimental goal conditions were asked a variety of questions pertaining to their goal acceptance, goal difficulty, effort, how realistic the goals were, and expectations of reaching their goals. The subjects rated these components on a Likert-type scale ranging from "1" (not at all) to "11" (very much), except for goal acceptance which was answered yes/no. In addition, subjects in the control groups (i.e. "do" and "do your best") were asked, after completion of the post test, if they set specific goals for themselves.

Procedure

Subjects were familiar with all the tasks except the dynamometer. In addition, two weeks prior to the goal-setting manipulations, they practiced each task several times, without any prior knowledge of the study. The familiarity with the tasks eliminated the possibility that subjects used special strategies to improve their scores, which could happen if the tasks were novel. Before each physical task, subjects were given specific instructions as to the task characteristics. Immediately after baseline scores were collected and given to the subjects (feedback), descriptive statistics were computed (means, SD's and ranges) and given to six professional army instructors. For each task, goal difficulty criteria were determined by instructors with at least two years' experience in the military tasks. This procedure validated the extent to which a goal was considered easy or hard on the goal difficulty continuum. This method was preferred to asking subjects to make this assessment since the experts had a great deal of previous experience to determine what would be easy, moderate or hard in terms of improving from Trial 1 to Trial 2. Their consensus on each of the tasks is presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Easy, Moderate, Hard, and Very Hard Improvement Goals for Each
of the Physical Tasks for Males and Females.
 Task improvement difficulty
Gender and task easy moderate hard very hard
Males:
hill-run (sec.) -2 -4 -7 -10
horizontal bar (~) 1 2 3 5
parallel bars (#) 3 6 8 15
rope (sec.) -1 -2 -3 -4
3000 m. (sec.) -10 -18 -30 -90
obstacle course (sec.) -15 -30 -45 -90
Dynamometer (sec.) 60 100 140 240
Females:
hill-run (sec.) -1 -3 -5 -10
rope (sec.) 5 10 15 20
sit-ups (#) 2 3 5 10
2000 m. (sec.) -10 -15 -25 -80
obstacle course (sec.) -7 -15 -25 -60
Dynamometer (sec.) 60 100 140 140

Baseline scores were then matched and subjects were randomly assigned into one of six goal conditions of which four were experimental and two were controls. The experimental conditions consisted of goals gradually increasing in difficulty (i.e., easy, moderate, hard, very hard) as presented in Table 1, and subjects were given their goals, based upon their initial performance. The retests were performed two days after the baseline performance. The short-time interval ensured that only one trial after feedback was examined to estimate the immediate effect of goal setting on motor performance.

These goals were reflected in absolute terms rather than as percentages of individual performance for two reasons. First, in most sport settings athletes' performances are measured in absolute terms. However, more importantly, if subjects were given set goals based on previous performances reflected as percentage values, then a 25% goal for a subject with a high score is far greater in absolute terms than the same 25% goal for an individual with a low score. Schmidt (1972) alludes to this stating that as performance improvements occur, psychological or physiological ceilings present a barrier. As these ceilings are approached, smaller performance improvements are possible than when performances are at an intermediate or low level.

The two control groups were given the instructions "do your best" or "do sit-ups." These two conditions were applied separately, since in previous studies (e.g., Weinberg et al., 1987) only the "do your best" condition was used. Since the "do your best" instruction may be considered as a goal, a "do sit-ups" group was required in order to obtain clear experimental effects for goal-setting difficulty (Tennenbaum, Weinberg, Pinchas, Elbaz & Bar-Eli, 1991). To avoid effects due to competition and social comparison (Hall & Byrne, 1988), prior to the second test each group was seated in a different location so that no contact among subjects of various goal conditions could occur. In addition, individual performance scores were not revealed to other subjects.

Results

Performance

Since males and females performed somewhat different tasks, each gender was analyzed separately. To determine if the matching procedure for assigning subjects to groups was indeed effective, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted on the baseline trial across all six experimental conditions. A one way ANOVA revealed no significant initial differences among groups. It should be noted here, that neither ANCOVA nor RM-ANOVA procedures could be applied to the data. This is true because in each of the physical tests, different subjects entered different conditions. This procedure was chosen to eliminate the effect of being in a single condition for 5 or 6 tasks, which may account for the post-test performance variance. Choosing this design guaranteed counterbalanced order of all subjects within physical tests. Thus, the performance data was analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance with the goal conditions serving as the independent variable and post-test scores as the dependent variable. Results indicated no significant between-group differences on any of the tasks for either the males or females. To further clarify these results, the same analysis was conducted except that difference scores (as opposed to post-test scores) were used as the dependent variable. However, once again results confirmed that there were no significant differences among the goal setting conditions on any of the tasks for either the males or females.

Questionnaire

The four experimental conditions were compared on the pre-test questionnaire after the goals were assigned to the subjects, but before the second test was performed. Females and males assigned to easy, moderate, hard, and very hard goals did not differ from each other in perceived difficulty to achieve the goal and the extent of intended effort. Both males and females assigned above medium ratings (means approximated 6-9 of 11-point continuum).

Applying chi-square analysis to the yes/no questions indicated that only 67% of the males assigned to very hard goals accepted the goal before the second test, (chi square (3) = 19.64; p|is less than~.01) which was significantly less than males in the other conditions (85%-100% accepted). In addition, all male subjects in the very hard goal condition (100%) felt that they failed to achieve their goal more often (chi square (3) = 11.33; P|is less than~.01) than subjects in hard (38%) moderate (53%) and easy (47%) goal conditions. Most females (91%-100%) accepted the goal assigned to them regardless of goal difficulty, but 100% of the females assigned to hard and very hard goals felt that they had not achieved it after the second test compared to 83% and 30% in the moderate and easy goal conditions (chi square (3) = 22.67; P|is less than~.0001).

Results also revealed that males in the very hard goal condition felt that their goals were significantly (p|is less than~.05) less realistic than males in all other conditions. Similarly, females assigned hard goals felt their goals less realistic (P|is less than~.05) than females who were assigned easy goals. Furthermore, females assigned to very hard goals also reported significantly (p|is less than~.05) less importance to achieving their goal and lower effort than females in the less difficult goal conditions.

Applying chi square analysis to the question "have you assigned a goal for yourself?" (yes/no) to males assigned to "do your best" and "do sit-ups" conditions revealed that 92% and 46% of the males in the "do your best" and "do sit-ups" conditions, respectively, answered "yes" (chi square (1) = 6.01; p|is less than~.05), while 55% and 70% of the females, respectively, also said they set their own goals. The majority of both males and females indicated that the goal they set for themselves was "to reach the best score possible". To the questions "How much effort have you invested and how important to you was it to gain the best result?", both "do" and "do your best" subjects' mean rating ranged between 8.1 and 9.1 with no significant differences between the two conditions. These values indicate that when external goals are omitted, subjects invest much effort to achieve their best performance, and this is perceived by them as very important.

Discussion

The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the effects of goal difficulty on immediate performance of aerobic, anaerobic, and power tasks in laboratory and field settings. Results indicated no significant differences among goal setting groups on any of the physical performance tasks. These results do not support the inverted U relationship between goal difficulty and performance that argues for goals to be realistic but attainable (Locke & Latham, 1990). In essence, the results of the present study offers no support for the notion that unrealistically high goals would produce decrements in motivational levels and that this in turn would lead to decreases in performance.

The lack of significant differences between the different goal difficulty conditions supports recent research in industrial/organizational psychology (Garland et al., 1988; Weinberg et al., 1987; Weinberg et al., 1990) that has failed to demonstrate any undermining effects of setting goals that are seemingly unreachable. In general, questionnaire results revealed that subjects across all tasks seemed to accept their goals (with the possible exception of males in the very hard goal condition) and perceived that they tried hard to accomplish them, so there does not seem to be any motivational or performance decrement evidenced by setting goals that are unrealistically high. Although no direct measure was taken concerning if the very hard goals were perceived as unrealistic by the subjects, not one subject achieved their goal in this condition. Thus, the experts classification of these goals as unrealistic was emphatically supported. Finally, the field nature of the present study, the use of a single performance trial, and the utilization of a number of different tasks extends the previous literature and adds to the external validity of the findings.

It might be tempting to conclude that there is no danger in setting unrealistically high goals for athletes and sport participants. However, this would seem premature, especially when one considers individual differences. In the present study, as in previous studies investigating the relationship between goal difficulty and performance (Weinberg et al., 1987; 1990), several subjects in the unrealistic goal condition (across the different tasks) exhibited large performance improvements while others showed almost no improvement or even a slight decrease in performance. Consequently, it appears that the effects of unrealistic goals on performance, depends at least in part on the nature of the individual. In essence, lofty goals are motivating for certain individuals but not for others. Thus, future research needs to focus on determining the personality and situational variables that will help predict who will be helped and who will be hindered by the setting of unrealistic goals. One such personality variable is goal orientation. Based on the theoretical work of Nicholls (1984) concerning achievement motivation, task-oriented and ego-oriented goal perspectives have been identified. Specifically, task-oriented individuals are concerned with improving their own performance whereas ego-oriented individuals are concerned about being better than other people. In essence, task-oriented individuals are focused on demonstrating a self-referenced conception of ability, whereas the ego-oriented individual is concerned with demonstrating more competence in relation to others. Thus, an unrealistic goal and repeated failure may not be detrimental to a task-oriented person as long as they see improvement toward the goal. However, the ego-oriented person may feel frustrated and "a failure" for not being able to demonstrate high ability at the task due to the repeated failures. Some additional personality variables that might mediate the goal-performance relationship include self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986), self-motivation (Dishman, Ickes, & Morgan, 1980) or competence motivation (Harter, 1982). This information would help coaches and teachers set more effective goals for different types of athletes and students in different settings.

In addition to results indicating no differences among the specific goal difficulty conditions, none of the experimental conditions performed significantly better than the two control conditions (i.e., "do sit-ups" and "do your best"). This "no difference" findings adds to the growing body of sport and exercise psychology literature that has not found any differences between specific goal conditions and control conditions (Garland et al., 1988; Miller & McAuley, 1987; Weinberg et al., 1985; 1987; 1990). It should be noted that there are a couple of explanations for the lack of differences among control and experimental goal setting groups.

First, like in several previous studies, more than half of all subjects in the control conditions set goals for themselves. Locke and Latham (1990) have noted that providing do your best subjects with feedback may well lead to spontaneous goal setting. However, if feedback were withheld from these subjects, then any resulting differences between specific and do your best goal conditions would have been confounded by the fact that do your best subjects didn't receive feedback whereas specific goal subjects did. In addition most subjects in the control condition who set goals stated that their goal was simply "to reach the best score possible" instead of setting a specific goal based on the feedback they received. In essence, control subjects didn't even appear to be using the specific feedback they received. In essence, control subjects didn't even appear to be using the specific feedback they received, rather they were motivated to just do their best regardless of their score.

The fact the subjects spontaneously set goals for themselves again points out the fact that the formal setting of specific goals may not always be necessary. This might be especially true of a group of motivated individuals like the soldiers in the present investigation who, strive to do their best on these skills since this is part of their daily training regimes. In essence, they seemed intrinsically motivated to demonstrate their physical competence independent of any external goal setting instructions. These results might lead some to conclude that goal setting is not effective for improving performance. However, it is not that goals are not effective, it is just that individual who are highly motivated do not need others to set goals for themselves. For example, in a couple of previous studies where spontaneous goal setting was not as prevalent (Hall & Byrne, 1988; Weinberg, Bruya, Longino, & Jackson, 1988) specific goal conditions did in fact perform significantly better than control, do your best conditions. In addition, when there are lower levels of motivation, such as in laboratory studies, results indicate that subjects assigned specific goals perform significantly better than subjects simply asked to do their best (Hall, Weinberg & Jackson, 1987).

It should be noted that there were little or no differences between males and females in the relationship between goals and performance. The only meaningful difference was in the questionnaire data which revealed that fewer males than females accepted their goal in the very hard condition, and this did not seem to affect performance results. It is important to point out the lack of differences between males and females since there appears to be a publication bias to report significant differences (Eagly, 1987). Eagly argues that since many theories predict gender differences, null findings (i.e., no differences) are not always considered attractive for publication. Hence reporting only significant differences between males and females presents a distorted analysis of gender differences in achievement situations (Eagly, 1987). In the few goal setting studies in sport and exercise that have included gender as an independent variable (e.g., Weinberg et al., 1985) it appears that little differences exist between males and females. Thus, it appears that in sport and exercise settings, males and females react to goals in much the same manner although further studies are necessary before more definitive conclusions can be reached.

In summary, results from the present field investigation using a variety of aerobic, anaerobic and power tasks support the notion that unrealistically high goals do not necessarily undermine immediate performance. A more heuristic approach that considers the specific personality characteristics as well as situational and environmental variables needs to be adopted if we are to gain a better understanding of how goals operate in sport and physical activity settings. Furthermore, the present investigation, as well as most of the research conducted in sport and exercise environments, has either been a one shot study or conducted over a relatively short time frame. Therefore, more longitudinal field studies that track subjects over a longer period of time such as those by Burton (1989) and Stitcher (1989), need to be conducted if we are to provide any external validity and generalizability to the relationship between goal setting and athletic performance.

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bavelas, J. B., & Lee, E. S. (1978). Systems analysis of dyadic interaction: Prediction from individual parameters. Behavioral Science, 23, 177-186.

Blumenfeld, W. S., & Leidy, J. R. (1969). Effectiveness of goalsetting as a management device: Research note. Psychological Reports, 24, 7 5 2.

Botterill, C. (1978). Psychology of coaching. Coaching Review, 1, 46-55.

Botterill, C. (1979). Goal setting with athletes. Sport science periodical on research and technology in sport, BU-1, 1-8.

Botterill, C. (1980). Psychology of coaching. In R. M. Suinn (Ed.), Psychology in sports: Methods and applications (pp. 261-268). Minneapolis: Burgess.

Burton, D. (1989). The impact of goal specificity and task complexity on basketball skill development. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 39-47.

Campbell, D., & Ilgen, D.R. (1976). Additive effects of task difficulty and goal setting on subsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 319-324.

Cox, R. H. (1985). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Dishman, R. K., Ickes, W. J., & Morgan, W. P. (1980). Self-motivation and adherence to habitual physical activity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 115-132.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Frierman, S. H., Weinberg, R. S., & Jackson, A. (1990). The relationship between goal proximity and specificity in bowling: A field experiment. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 145-154.

Garland, H. (1983). The influence of ability, assigned goals, and normative information on personal goals and performance: A challenge to the goal attainability assumption. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 20-30.

Garland, H., Weinberg, R., Bruya, L., & Jackson, A. (1988). Selfefficacy and endurance performance: A longitudinal field test of cognitive mediation theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 37, 381-394.

Hall, H. K., & Byrne, A. (1988). Goal setting in sport: Clarifying some anomalies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 184-198.

Hall, H. K., Weinberg, R. S., & Jackson, A. (1987). Effects of goal specificity, goal difficulty and information feedback on endurance performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 43-54.

Harris, D. V., & Harris, B. L. (1984). The athlete's guide to sports psychology: Mental skills for physical people. Champaign, IL: Leisure.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 83-97.

Ivancevich, J. M. (1977). Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406-419.

Kirschenbaum, D. S. (1985). Proximity and specificity of planning: A position paper. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 489-506.

Latham, G. P., & Baldes, J. J. (1975). The "practical significance" of Locke's theory of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 122-124.

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1975). Increasing productivity with decreasing time limits: A field replication of Parkinson's law. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 524-526.

Locke, E. A. (1966). The relationship of intentions to level of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 50-66.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.

Locke, E. A. (1982). Relation of goal level to performance with a short work period and multiple goal levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 512-514.

Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. (1969). The directing function of goals in task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 35-42.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1985). The application of goal setting to sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 205-222.

Locke, E. A., & Latham,. G. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychology Science, 1, 240-246.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 105, 3-46.

London, M., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Effects of varying goal types and incentive systems on performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 537-546.

McClements, J. D., & Botterill, C. B. (1979). Goal setting in shaping of future performance of athletes. In P. Klavora & J. Daniel (Eds.), Coach athlete and the sport psychologist. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto.

Mento, A. J., Cartledge, N. D., & Locke, E. A. (1980). Maryland vs. Michigan vs. Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 419-440.

Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karen, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal-setting on task performance: 1968-1984. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 52-83.

Miller, J. T., & McAuley, E. (1987). Effects of a goal-setting training program on basketball free-throw self-efficacy and performance. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 103-111.

Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice and performance. Psychological Review, 91,328-346.

Rothkopf, E. A., & Kaplan, R. (1972). Exploration of the effect of density and specificity of instructional objectives on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 295-302.

Schmidt, R. A. (1972). Experimental psychology. In. R. N. Singer (Ed.), The psychomotor domain: Movement behavior. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Singer, R. N. (1986). Peak performance and more. Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.

Stitcher, T. (1989). Effects of goal setting on performance enhancement in a competitive athletic setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas.

Tennenbaum, G., Geron, E., & Gruzinovski, A. (1986). Physiological changes during enduring aerobic exercise under intrinsic and extrinsic motivational states. In J. Watkins, T. Reilly & L. Burwitz (Eds.), Sports Sciences (pp. 279-284). London, GB: E. & F.N. Spon.

Tenenbaum, G., Weinberg, R. S., Pinchas, S., Elbaz, G., & Bar-Eli, M. (1991). Effect of goal proximity and goal specificity on muscle endurance performance: A replication and extension. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 13, 174-187.

Weinberg, R. S., Bruya, L. D., Garland, H., L Jackson, A. (1990). Effect of goal difficulty and positive reinforcement on endurance performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 144-156.

Weinberg, R. S., Bruya, L. D., & Jackson, A. (1985). The effects of goal proximity and goal specificity on endurance performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 296-305.

Weinberg, R. S., Bruya, L. D., Jackson, A., & Garland, H. (1987). Goal difficulty and endurance performance: A challenge to the goal attainability assumption. Journal of Sport Behavior, 10, 82-92.

Weinberg, R. S., Bruya, L. D., Longino, J., & Jackson, A. (1988). Effect of goal proximity and specificity on endurance performance of primary-grade children. Journal of Sport Psychology, 10, 81-91.

Yukl, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance, goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 31, 305-323.