The role of proximal intentions in self-regulation of refractory behavior
The present experiment tested the hypothesis that self-regulation of refractory behavior varies as a function of goal proximity. Obese subjects were assigned to conditions in which they either monitored their eating behavior, monitored their eating behavior and set subgoals for reducing the amount of food consumed, or received no treatment. Within the goal-setting conditions, subjects adopted either distal goals defined in terms of weekly goal limits or proximal goals specifying the goal limits for each of four time periods during each day. Goal setting enhanced self-directed change as measured by reductions in both eating behavior and weight. The higher the goal attainments, the greater were the losses in weight. Proximal and distal goal setting yielded comparable overall results because the majority of subjects assigned remote goals altered this condition by adopting proximal goals to augment control over their own behavior. Within the distal goal-setting condition, the adherents to distal goals achieved relatively small changes, whereas those who improvised proximal subgoals for themselves attained substantial reductions on the multifaceted measures of self-directed change. The combined evidence lends support to the motivational and regulative functions of proximal intentions and highlights the reciprocal influence processes that operate in self-directed change.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Atkinson, J. W. A revised theory of achievement motivation. In J. W. Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.),A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A.Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
- Bellack, A. S. A comparison of self-reinforcement and self-monitoring in a weight reduction program.Behavior Therapy 1976,7 68–75.Google Scholar
- Fowler, R. S., Jr., Fordyce, W. E., Boyd, V. D., & Masock, A. J. The mouthful diet: A behavioral approach to overeating.Rehabilitation Psychology 1972,19 98–108.Google Scholar
- Hagen, R. L., Foreyt, J. P., & Durham, T. W. The dropout problem: Reducing attrition in obesity research.Behavior Therapy 1976,7 463–471.Google Scholar
- Jeffery, K. M.The effects of goal-setting on self-motivated persistence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1977.Google Scholar
- Kazdin, A. E. Self-monitoring and behavior change. In M. J. Mahoney & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.),Self-control: Power to the person. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1974.Google Scholar
- Locke, E. A. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1968,3 157–189.Google Scholar
- Mahoney, M. J. Self-reward and self-monitoring techniques for weight control.Behavior Therapy 1974,5 48–57.Google Scholar
- Mahoney, M. J., & Thoresen, C. E.Self-control: Power to the person. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1974.Google Scholar
- Romanczyk, R. G. Self-monitoring in the treatment of obesity: Parameters of reactivity.Behavior Therapy 1974,5 531–540.Google Scholar
- Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. The role of task-goal attributes in employee performance.Psychological Bulletin 1974,81 434–452.Google Scholar