Goals as excuses versus guides: Dynamics of goal-based choice
When individuals simultaneously hold multiple goals that they wish to pursue over time, self-regulation may follow one of two possible dynamics: highlighting the pursuit of a single goal in several consecutive actions versus balancing among several potentially incongruent goals across several actions. For example, a person who chooses to dine out and wishes to both save money and seek pleasure, can balance between these conflicting goals by choosing an expensive appetizer and less expensive entrŽe; or, the person can highlight one of these goals, e.g., by choosing an expensive appetizer and an expensive entrŽe. Choice-highlighting refers to a dynamic of self-regulation where pursuing one goal enhances the commitment to this particular goal relative to competing ones and motivates complementary actions over time. Choice-balancing refers to a dynamic of self-regulation where pursuing one goal liberates the individual to pursue other, conflicting goals on the next opportunity. In my talk I suggest that what determines people's interest in choice highlighting versus choice balancing is how they interpret the meaning of an initial action that is congruent with one of the goals. It is possible that a person could interpret such an action as indicating a strong commitment to the respective goal. If so, such an interpretation would then increase the motivation to make similar, complementary actions. On the other hand, it is also possible that a person might interpret that initial choice as indicating progress toward that goal. If so, then that person consequently relaxes her or his efforts toward the goal, and begins to attend to the other competing goals. In a series of studies, I explore several factors that influence the interpretation of the meaning of an initial action and how it influences subsequent choice.
© 2006, The Ohio State University | Department of Psychology, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall | Columbus, Ohio 43210