Does deliberate prospection help students set better goals?

Abstract

Human cognition is fundamentally goal-directed (Carver & Scheier, 2001), and there are still many open questions about the cognitive mechanisms of goal-setting and how they affect the quality of people’s goals (Kasser & Ryan, 1996). Here, we study in an exploratory way how goals set through deliberate reflection about the future (prospection) differ from the goals people set without guided prospection. We conducted an online experiment where students derived goals from imagining what they would like a close friend or relative to say about their accomplishments in the future. We aimed to answer two questions: 1) How does this goal-setting strategy affect the goal’s characteristics (e.g., importance and specificity), and which broad life aspirations the goal aims at (e.g., wealth, safety, or happiness)? 2) How do those effects depend on the time horizon of the imagined accomplishments? The second question is especially important because the impact of the time horizon of prospection has not been studied before. In the first phase of the experiment, all participants engaged in unstructured, baseline goal-setting. In the second phase of the experiment, all participants were guided to engage in deliberate prospection. Concretely, they imagined what they would like a close friend or relative to say about their accomplishments at one of three randomly assigned time points: the end of the current semester (N = 26), the end of their university studies (N = 26), or the end of their life (N = 24). Finally, they were asked to derive a goal from the resulting insights. Participants rated both goals on shortened and translated versions of the Goal Characteristics Questionnaire (Iwama et al., 2021) and the Aspiration Index (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Grouzet, et al., 2005) immediately after setting each goal.
Regarding our first question, we found that the goals students set through deliberate prospection were superior to the goals they set intuitively on several metrics (see Table 1) but less specific and less measurable. Participants rated post-prospection goals as being more useful to pursue (p<.001), better aligned with their identity (p<.01) and their values (p<.05), more strongly tied to aspirations to have exciting life experiences (p<.05), and less strongly tied to wealth (p<.05) and safety (p<.01) aspirations. Together, these findings are consistent with the theory that people’s attention has a positivity offset highlighting possible upsides when they think about psychologically-distant possibilities and a negativity bias highlighting possible dangers of more proximal goal pursuit (Caciappo & Bernston, 1999). Moreover, deliberate prospection shifted students’ priorities towards maintaining what is good (p<.05) and pursuing worthwhile activities rather than focusing on the outcome (p<.01).
Regarding our second question about the time horizon of prospection, we found that reflecting on what they would like to have accomplished by the end of their life made students care less about financial success and more about contributing to their community than reflecting on shorter timescales (both p<.05). This finding indicates an increased focus on intrinsic values and a decreased focus on extrinsic values when reflecting on a longer time horizon. Our results also suggest that reflecting on what they would like to have accomplished by the end of their studies directs students more toward conformity-oriented goals than prospecting on other time periods (p<.05). This might be because conforming to academic norms and expectations is instrumental for getting a good job after graduation.
Overall, our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that deriving goals through deliberate prospection helps people set goals that they believe will be rewarding to pursue, and that research has shown are conducive to well-being. In some cases, these benefits to goal-setting are particularly pronounced when reflecting on the end of one’s life. We will test several concrete hypotheses suggested by these results in a large, preregistered follow-up experiment. The aim is to characterize the benefits of deliberate prospection and to determine which time horizon is most beneficial for goal attainment and well-being.

Full text

Does deliberate prospection help students set better goals?
Jähnichen, Sarah1; Weber, Felix1; Prentice, Mike2; Lieder, Falk2
1Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany
2Rationality Enhancement Group, MPI for Intelligent Systems, Tübingen, Germany
Human cognition is fundamentally goal-directed (Carver & Scheier, 2001), and there
are still many open questions about the cognitive mechanisms of goal-setting and how they
affect the quality of people’s goals (Kasser & Ryan, 1996). Here, we study in an exploratory
way how goals set through deliberate reflection about the future (prospection) differ from the
goals people set without guided prospection. We conducted an online experiment where
students derived goals from imagining what they would like a close friend or relative to say
about their accomplishments in the future. We aimed to answer two questions: 1) How does
this goal-setting strategy affect the goal’s characteristics (e.g., importance and specificity),
and which broad life aspirations the goal aims at (e.g., wealth, safety, or happiness)? 2) How
do those effects depend on the time horizon of the imagined accomplishments? The second
question is especially important because the impact of the time horizon of prospection has
not been studied before. In the first phase of the experiment, all participants engaged in
unstructured, baseline goal-setting. In the second phase of the experiment, all participants
were guided to engage in deliberate prospection. Concretely, they imagined what they would
like a close friend or relative to say about their accomplishments at one of three randomly
assigned time points: the end of the current semester (N = 26), the end of their university
studies (N = 26), or the end of their life (N = 24). Finally, they were asked to derive a goal
from the resulting insights. Participants rated both goals on shortened and translated
versions of the Goal Characteristics Questionnaire (Iwama et al., 2021) and the Aspiration
Index (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Grouzet, et al., 2005) immediately after setting each goal.
Regarding our first question, we found that the goals students set through deliberate
prospection were superior to the goals they set intuitively on several metrics (see Table 1) but
less specific and less measurable. Participants rated post-prospection goals as being more
useful to pursue (p<.001), better aligned with their identity (p<.01) and their values (p<.05),
more strongly tied to aspirations to have exciting life experiences (p<.05), and less strongly
tied to wealth (p<.05) and safety (p<.01) aspirations. Together, these findings are consistent
with the theory that people’s attention has a positivity offset highlighting possible upsides
when they think about psychologically-distant possibilities and a negativity bias highlighting
possible dangers of more proximal goal pursuit (Caciappo & Bernston, 1999). Moreover,
deliberate prospection shifted students’ priorities towards maintaining what is good (p<.05)
and pursuing worthwhile activities rather than focusing on the outcome (p<.01).
Regarding our second question about the time horizon of prospection, we found that
reflecting on what they would like to have accomplished by the end of their life made
students care less about financial success and more about contributing to their community
than reflecting on shorter timescales (both p<.05). This finding indicates an increased focus
on intrinsic values and a decreased focus on extrinsic values when reflecting on a longer
time horizon. Our results also suggest that reflecting on what they would like to have
accomplished by the end of their studies directs students more toward conformity-oriented
goals than prospecting on other time periods (p<.05). This might be because conforming to
academic norms and expectations is instrumental for getting a good job after graduation.
Overall, our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that deriving goals through
deliberate prospection helps people set goals that they believe will be rewarding to pursue,
and that research has shown are conducive to well-being. In some cases, these benefits to
goal-setting are particularly pronounced when reflecting on the end of one’s life. We will test
several concrete hypotheses suggested by these results in a large, preregistered follow-up
experiment. The aim is to characterize the benefits of deliberate prospection and to
determine which time horizon is most beneficial for goal attainment and well-being.
Keywords:goals; goal-setting; prospection; education; goal characteristics

Table 1. Effects of goal-setting (gs) and time horizon (t) on goal characteristics and aspirations.
Statistically significant findings are highlighted in gray.
Measure
Unstructured
goal-setting
Deliberate
prospection
pgs
End of
semester
End of
studies
End of life
pt
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Aspirations
Hedonism
3.70 (1.16)
4.04 (1.04)
.019
3.89 (0.96)
4.12 (1.00)
4.13 (1.20)
.629
Money
4.29 (0.77)
4.03 (0.91)
.013
4.20 (0.75)
4.24 (0.72)
3.63 (1.14)
.047
Safety
4.07 (0.99)
3.66 (1.27)
.002
3.50 (1.34)
3.77 (1.31)
3.71 (1.17)
.584
Community
3.65 (1.08)
3.70 (1.09)
.689
3.43 (1.14)
3.58 (0.99)
4.13 (1.04)
.035
Conformity
1.89 (0.98)
1.95 (1.10)
.561
1.70 (0.89)
2.20 (1.24)
1.96 (1.13)
.025
Characteristics
Utility of Goal Pursuit
3.85 (0.97)
4.18 (0.76)
.001
4.04 (0.78)
4.27 (0.78)
4.21 (0.73)
.644
Self-Congruence
3.14 (1.23)
3.50 (1.20)
.008
3.27 (1.08)
3.54 (1.31)
3.71 (1.20)
.592
Value-Congruence
3.65 (1.06)
3.94 (1.04)
.019
3.74 (1.08)
3.97 (1.04)
4.13 (1.00)
.502
Content Specificity
3.61 (1.30)
3.19 (1.28)
.017
3.43 (1.18)
2.93 (1.33)
3.21 (1.32)
.327
Time Specificity
3.36 (1.33)
2.95 (1.30)
.019
3.12 (1.18)
2.85 (1.32)
2.88 (1.43)
.506
Measurability
3.69 (1.08)
3.25 (1.24)
.002
3.31 (1.23)
3.00 (1.20)
3.46 (1.29)
.940
Maintenance-Attainment
Goal
2.73 (1.30)
3.08 (1.35)
.036
2.97 (1.32)
3.39 (1.27)
2.88 (1.46)
.469
Process-Outcome Focus
3.73 (1.12)
4.12 (1.00)
.002
4.08 (1.02)
3.93 (1.10)
4.38 (0.83)
.055
References
Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The Affect System: Architecture and Operating
Characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 133–137.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Grouzet, F. M., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M., Kim, Y., Lau, S., . . . Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The
structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology,
89(5), 800.
Iwama, G. Y., Weber, F., Prentice, M., & Lieder, F. (2021). Development and Validation of a Goal
Characteristics Questionnaire. OSF Preprints.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of
intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,(22)(3).