Goal Setting in Sport and Exercise
Setting goals is a great way to improve athletic performance. Many athletes try to compete or endure blindly in their various sporting events with disappointing improvement. Setting goals allows athletes to make steps in becoming better. It is important not to group all goals together because by implementing different types of goals one can tailor an outcome by the goal process they use.
Recently, sport psychologists have researched the effectiveness of goal setting as a means to increase performance or meet personal goals within the sport and exercise arenas. Theories have assumed that goals will regulate human action which, in turn, will result in increased control over one’s performance (Kingston & Hardy, 1997). Goal setting has the potential to be an important factor in behavior modification (Shilts, Horowitz, & Townsend, 2004).
Sport psychologists have identified several types of goals: first, a goal may be proximal or distal (Shilts et al., 2004). Proximal goals are better known as short-term goals; while distal goals are long-term. Studies have attempted to determine if short-term or long-term goals are superior, but have been inconclusive (Getz & Rainey, 2001).
Second, goals can be described by who sets the goal. Three variations can be found: self-set, assigned/prescribed, or participatory/collaborative (Shilts et al., 2004). A self-set goal is one that is by the athlete/exerciser only. An assigned goal is one that is given by a coach or field professional. Participatory goal is one in which a professional gives the athlete/exerciser multiple goals to choose from and the exerciser then chooses their preferred goal.
Third, goals are described as how improvement is measured. Again, three variations can be found, namely outcome, performance, and process (Kingston & Hardy, 1997, Weinberg & Gould, 2003). Outcome goals focus on the end result of a competition while performance goals compare one’s performance against a previous performance. Conversely, process goals focus attention on what one must do during a competition (Weinberg & Gould, 2003). Weinberg and Gould (2003) explain that performance and process goals are easily measured and are within one one’s control, while outcome goals depend on not only one’s ability, but also on an opposing player’s ability. Kingston and Hardy (1997) hypothesize this is caused by social comparison. Getz and Rainey (2001) explain that if social comparison does happen, individuals may not strive to meet personal goals, but only to exceed the performance of others.
In a meta-analysis of 28 studies conducted on goals and goal setting, 4 studies compared the use of proximal (short-term) vs. distal (long-term) goal setting. One study found that distal goal setting lead to increased proficiency, but it also saw a higher rate of attrition (Shilts et al., 2004). The higher rate of attrition may be due to the distal goal not being immediately attainable; therefore, those types of goals lose their motivational power (Donovan & Williams, 2003). The other three studies found no difference in proximal vs. distal goal setting (Shilts et al., 2004).
Donovan and Williams (2003) argue that it is neither proximal nor distal goals that are superior, rather many situations require both proximal and distal used together. In their study of college level athletes, the researchers attempted to determine if athletes would set difficult goals, and if they would revise their next proximal and distal goals based on the achievement or failure to attain a previously set proximal goal.
They found that individuals whose performance did not meet their previously set goal revised subsequent goals downward to reduce discrepancy between actual performance and their goals. However, performers who met or exceeded their performance goals tended to revise goals upward making them more difficult to attain (Donovan & Williams, 2003).
Getz and Rainey (2001) also attempted to see what kind of proximal goals would be best used to attain a distal goal. Their study performed two experiments to determine if rigid or flexible, proximal goals would best achieve a long-term goal in free throw shooting. They hypothesized the group using flexible short-term goals would improve the most.
In the first experiment, they had research participants shoot regular free throws over five trials. This may have confounded the results in that participants had an average of 10 years experience in playing basketball in which free throw shooting is practiced often. In order to make the activity less familiar in the second experiment, the researchers moved the shooting area to the left.
In both experiments, the group using the flexible short-term goal had a higher rate of improvement than the rigid short-term goal group. Specifically, in the second experiment, the flexible goal group showed four times as much improvement than the rigid goal group. Another result from the second experiment was that the flexible goal group came close to reaching the previously set distal goal, while the rigid goal group had an insignificant improvement in reaching their distal goal. Researchers hypothesized that this was due to the fact that if the rigid short term group did not meet the first goal, they would need to make up the difference at the second trial, plus meet the new goal of the second trial. This may have caused the group using rigid short-term goals to give up and no longer strive to achieve the goals given to them (Getz & Rainey, 2001).
Shilts et al. (2004) analyzed six studies that compared the effects of self-set goals and goals set by a professional. The researchers determined that assigned goal setting was more effective than self-set goals, although they did not describe how they came to this conclusion or if the participants in those studies were familiar or unfamiliar with the activity. They suggested it may depend on the participant’s experience in that activity.
A participant’s experience level formed the basis of Elston and Martin Ginis’ (2004) study. They explained that while people new to an activity will do better if goals are assigned, experienced participants do better by setting goals for themselves. The study used an unfamiliar activity to most people, a grip-strength task. The 50 participants were evenly split into two groups, one with assigned goals that were moderately difficult and the other group self-set a goal. The participants who were assigned a goal were asked if they accepted the goal. The participants were asked this because researchers have found goals are only effective if the participants accept the goals. The study showed that participants who were assigned and accepted a goal, did better on subsequent trials than the self-set goal group. These findings suggest that if one is new to an activity, it is best to have a professional in the field assign them a goal rather than assigning themselves their own goals.
Kingston and Hardy (1997) tested the effect of performance-based versus process-based goals. Thirty-seven club golfers were put into three groups: performance-based goals, process-based goals, and a control group with no goal. The golfer’s were asked to fill out two questionnaires, the CSAI-2 and the SPSQ and their handicap was scored three times during an entire season of competitive golf. The study showed the process-goal group significantly improved performance from test 1, 2, and 3. The performance-goal group did not make significant improvements from test 1 to test 2. They did improve from test 1 to test 3. Both goal groups experienced lower cognitive anxiety than the control group. The process-goal group felt that the goal setting skills they learned had a beneficial impact on their performance. The performance based goal group did not feel that the goal setting technique had a significant effect though (Kingston & Hardy, 1997).
Goal setting is an important part in improving performance in sports and exercise. All types of goals have their place and some work better than others in various situations. Goals should be moderately difficult and specific. Flexible, short-term goals should be set with long-term, ultimate goals in mind. Process, performance and outcome goals can all be implemented in different ways to achieve peak performance. Goals should be recorded so that the athlete can receive feedback and further improve performance (Donovan & Williams, 2003, Getz & Rainey, 2001, Weinberg & Gould, 2003).
References:
Brobst, B., & Ward, P. (2002). Effects of public posting, goal setting, and oral feedback on the skills of female soccer players. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 247-257. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from the PsycINFO database.
Donovan, J. J., & Williams, K. J. (2003). Missing the mark: Effects of time and causal attributions on goal revision in response to goal-performance discrepancies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 379-390. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from the PsycINFO database.
Elston, T.L., & Martin Ginis, K. A. (2004). The effects of self-set versus assigned goals on exercisers’ self-efficacy for an unfamiliar task. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 500-504. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from the PsycINFO database.
Getz, G. E., & Rainey, D. W. (2001). Flexible short-term goals and basketball shooting performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 31-40. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from the PsycINFO database.
Kingston, K. M., & Hardy, L. (1997). Effects of different types of goals on process that support performance. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 277-293. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from the PsycINFO database.
Shilts, M.K., Horowitz, M., & Townsend, M.S. (2004). Goal setting as a strategy for dietary and physical activity behavior change: A review of the literature. American Journal of Health Promotion, 19(2), 81-93. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from the PsycINFO database.
Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport & exercise psychology (3rd ed.). Illinois: Human Kinetics.
